When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[Subduction Zone]

If that were true they would have shut this board down a long time ago and there would be an end to this discussion and the debate. That would in effect be "the end of the world". Meaning the end of an age or an era. We are predicting that is exactly what is going to happen but it has not happened yet.

Creationists have a high degree of cognitive dissonance. The theory of evolution threatens their belief so their minds will go to great extremes to protect their errors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Don't worry, creationists aren't the only ones that have this problem. Early on in my internet debating I met a person that claimed that one could make a vehicle that moved directly downwind faster than the wind that powered it and not by saving up energy by any means. I assured him that it was impossible since that vehicle would be traveling into its own headwind and that would have to be an over unity device. As part of the debate I learned some basic sailing knowledge and everything that I believed instinctively turned out to be wrong. I had severe doubts about my claims when he made a small proof of concept vehicle and showed that it worked via a video. I knew enough to see that his simple vehicle worked. And I finally opened up enough to learn how it worked without breaking any laws of physics.

Of course there were those that still denied his claim. He made a better simpler proof of concept model (actually he openly admitted that he took the design from someone else that was inspired by his work and never claimed the simpler one was his, he just used it because it was better). And ran many tests showing how it worked on a treadmill. If you have heard of a Galilean Transformation you could see how something running on a treadmill is exactly the same as something running on the road with a tailwind equal to the speed of the treadmill. At any rate there were those who could not and would not accept the treadmill tests. Even though they were abundantly clear that there was no cheating going on.

Eventually he and a good friend of his realized that they would not convince anyone until they built a human sized model and ran it in a real wind. So they did. They had a very detailed blog where they kept everyone apprised of their weekly progress. When it came to test it they did what is sometimes called "test to destruction". They tested it until a crucial part failed. By doing this they found a couple of weaknesses in the power train that they beefed up. They contacted a well respected sailing organization. Showed them their work in progress, at this point it was a pretty much done deal that they had succeeded. But they went on to get it officially tested. Not only did they prove their case. They were certified by NALSA (the North American Land Sailing Association) and were even put in the Guinness book of world records. Their cart officially went 2.8 times the speed of the wind directly downwind, but before the official test on a windier day, they had it over three times the speed of the wind.

There is no known practical use to this concept yet. It was just and internet argument that these two took to an extreme. That was years ago and there still is one denier out there.

In the same way, and since this is a much larger pool of debaters, there will always be some creationists denying reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, that was my point. Strictly speaking, the term "creationist" should include them (perhaps I should say "us") as they believe that God is, ultimately, the author of the universe. In practice, however, it has become a term of opprobrium.

That is because of the rather extreme denial of reality by many creationists. Even other Christians do not want to have anything to do with them. I will gladly explain to creationists that scientists are not trying to "disprove God". A claim that I have heard far too many times. Scientists are merely trying to find out what happened. I will often use the example of Galileo's work. He was one of the first that put geocentrism under severe doubt. He was charged and found guilty, luckily for him they lowered the charge to a lesser degree, of saying things that threatened a belief in God. But Galileo did not prove that God did not exist, he was a Christian himself. He did show that the "God" of geocentrists did not exist. So if your "God" demands that the Noah's Ark myth is true, then science shows that "God" does not exist. On the other hand if one does not take Genesis literally then scientists only explain what happened in Earth's pre-civilization ages. It does not debunk their God because their God does not have the limitations that others have.

Getting lait, 2 manee tyops and oter mstakes. Good night.

 

[driewerf]

Your talking about the self correcting mechanism which I talk about all the time. When you have an error: in this case even a virus is able to correct that error. We know that slight variation can cause considerable change. This is seen in the butterfly effect. Yet there are always going to be boundaries. Even when there is variation. Here is the variation of the effect with just two hinges (factors).

No. This is not about a selfcorrecting mechanism. This is a direct refutation of a previous claim of yours:

I'll be off for some weeks later today, but specialized structures need specialized code.
Code doesn't write itself.

Yes it does. We have evidence from the lab:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000096

Short summary: in a virus scientists removed the gene that codes for the protein that infects other cells and replaced it by a random sequence. Over 20 genereations they saw a gradual increase in infectivity. This means the virus developped gradually a better protein for infecting host cells, and hence the DNA code "wrote itself".

The article states that the increase in infectivity increased by a factor of 17 000 over 20 generations.
And the code for the infecting protein, indeed wrote itself. Limitations or not, the prime message is; genes can write themselves through variation and natural selection.

 

[rjs330]

Wrong on two points. First you want evidence not "proof". Second the theory of evolution does not say that an animal turns into something else. There is no "change of kinds" in evolution. You can rest assured that even with evolution all of your children will be human beings since they came from human beings. Of course you and I are apes and so are your children. We are descended from apes, we share a common ancestor with other apes. No change of "kind". Also you and me and your children are all primates. We share a common ancestor with other primates that was a primate too, no change of kind. And you and I and your children are all mammals. We share a common ancestor with the other mammals. No change of kind. And you and I and your children are all tetrapods. We share a common ancestor with other tetrapods such as reptiles and amphibians that was a tetrapod. No change of kind. And we are also all vertebrates, we share a common ancestor with other vertebrates. No change of kind.

Do you see how "change of kind" is a bad term to use?

Once again you refer to man made definitions. Lumping humans into catgories is a man made definition and is meaningless to my point. Humans are not apes unless humans define them as such based upon similarities. Humans are of a larger group of mammals because man decided to make such a group based on similarities.

There is a change of kind in evolution. We HAVE to have change of kind of we came from a common ancestor. Apes have not always existed according to evolution. They came from something else. Follow the line all the way back to the beginning of life and one thing evolved into all w have today. Unless evolution is claiming that millions of different things crawled out the primordial ooze to evolve into all the creatures we have today. If apes and man have a common ancestor we came from the same thing which at sometime slowly evolved into something it was not in the beginning. Spiders monkeys humans birds fish and all creatures great and small all evolved from from one thing according to evolution. And if millions of different things,began to evolve from things that climbed out of the water onto land there is no proof of that either.

Every single piece of evidence that evolutionists espouse is nothing more than an interpretation of what they find which is based upon a belief system that says evolution is true. It remains an assumption until proof is found. That is the key to science. Until then it is only an hypothosis until they can prove it by observation and experimentation. And no one has been able to do that with evolution since it is a random event and turns one thing into something else.

All creatures do evolve in a fashion. Whether it's growing more hair or fat in a folder climate, or its digestive system changes, to consume the food of its local. But that is not proof of then type of evolution espoused as a hypothosis as to how we came to be from whatever There was in the very beginning.





Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry none of that is proof unless you,want it to. Its still,all assumption . . .

Show me a single assumption that I used. A single one.

At this point, you are just trolling. You bury your head in the sand and try to pretend that you haven't been presented evidence. This is the type of dishonesty that we have come to expect from creationists.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly, what did you inherit from your father? You inherited some traits and also had some new,ones. But what you didn't inherit was a gene that begins to turn you into something else, something inhuman. Unless you of,course believe in the X-Men.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Just as we share a common ancestor with other primates, and we are still primates.

You still don't understand how evolution works.

 

[Loudmouth]

Once again you refer to man made definitions.

Says the man who defines offspring as the same creature using man made definitions.

There is a change of kind in evolution. We HAVE to have change of kind of we came from a common ancestor.

How is "kind" not a man made definition?

 

[USincognito]

Once again you refer to man made definitions. Lumping humans into catgories is a man made definition and is meaningless to my point. Humans are not apes unless humans define them as such based upon similarities. Humans are of a larger group of mammals because man decided to make such a group based on similarities.

There is a change of kind in evolution. We HAVE to have change of kind of we came from a common ancestor. Apes have not always existed according to evolution. They came from something else. Follow the line all the way back to the beginning of life and one thing evolved into all w have today. Unless evolution is claiming that millions of different things crawled out the primordial ooze to evolve into all the creatures we have today. If apes and man have a common ancestor we came from the same thing which at sometime slowly evolved into something it was not in the beginning. Spiders monkeys humans birds fish and all creatures great and small all evolved from from one thing according to evolution. And if millions of different things,began to evolve from things that climbed out of the water onto land there is no proof of that either.

Every single piece of evidence that evolutionists espouse is nothing more than an interpretation of what they find which is based upon a belief system that says evolution is true. It remains an assumption until proof is found. That is the key to science. Until then it is only an hypothosis until they can prove it by observation and experimentation. And no one has been able to do that with evolution since it is a random event and turns one thing into something else.

All creatures do evolve in a fashion. Whether it's growing more hair or fat in a folder climate, or its digestive system changes, to consume the food of its local. But that is not proof of then type of evolution espoused as a hypothosis as to how we came to be from whatever There was in the very beginning.





Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

It's almost as if he completely ignored my posts yesterday.

 

[rjs330]

Says the man who defines offspring as the same creature using man made definitions.



How is "kind" not a man made definition?

Yep you're right. But that doesn't make us apes. I say humans have always been humans and always will be. Apes have always been apes and always will be. Prove it's not so. Unless of course you define humans as apes in order to perpetuate the lie.

Call us goblins for all I care. Whatever term you want to use for us then that's what we are and always have been and always will be. We have never had the same ancestor as apes or whatever definition or words you want to use for them.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

It's almost as if he completely ignored my posts yesterday.

Oh no I understood your post very well. Its just the same gobbeldy gook that evolutionists use to try and cloud the real problem with their hypothosis. The fact they can't prove it.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yep you're right. But that doesn't make us apes. I say humans have always been humans and always will be. Apes have always been apes and always will be. Prove it's not so. Unless of course you define humans as apes in order to perpetuate the lie.

Call us goblins for all I care. Whatever term you want to use for us then that's what we are and always have been and always will be. We have never had the same ancestor as apes or whatever definition or words you want to use for them.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

How are humans not apes? Do you actually have an answer for this question that does not simply go along the lines of "We are separate kinds" or "because God made us different" or anything in between?

 

[Speedwell]

Yep you're right. But that doesn't make us apes. I say humans have always been humans and always will be. Apes have always been apes and always will be. Prove it's not so. Unless of course you define humans as apes in order to perpetuate the lie.

Call us goblins for all I care. Whatever term you want to use for us then that's what we are and always have been and always will be. We have never had the same ancestor as apes or whatever definition or words you want to use for them.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

So what if we did? Could not God have made us from some primate ancestor as easily as from a handful of dust?

 

[USincognito]

Oh no I understood your post very well. Its just the same gobbeldy gook that evolutionists use to try and cloud the real problem with their hypothosis. The fact they can't prove it.

The second and third sentences belie the first. You keep using prove/proof, but nothing is ever proven in science. If you have actually understood my posts (there were more than one) you would stop doing so.

That you continue to do so is a sign you didn't actually understand it.

 

[USincognito]

Yep you're right. But that doesn't make us apes. I say humans have always been humans and always will be. Apes have always been apes and always will be. Prove it's not so. Unless of course you define humans as apes in order to perpetuate the lie.

Is this skull "ape" or "human" and why do you conclude as you do?

 

[AV1611VET]

How are humans not apes?

We have a soul and a spirit.

Also, humans say we were made from the dust of the earth: "glorified apes" deny it.

Solomon had apes available for study ...

1 Kings 10:22 For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.

... and concluded ...

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Notice also that evolution here is referred to as an "invention," not a "discovery"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again you refer to man made definitions. Lumping humans into catgories is a man made definition and is meaningless to my point. Humans are not apes unless humans define them as such based upon similarities. Humans are of a larger group of mammals because man decided to make such a group based on similarities.

All definitions are man made. What other kind of definition can there be? Humans are apes. Since we share a common ancestor with apes we have to be apes.

"Apes (Hominoidea) are a branch of Old World tailless anthropoid catarrhine primates native to Africa and Southeast Asia. They are distinguished from other primates by a wider degree of freedom of motion at the shoulder joint as evolved by the influence of brachiation. There are two extant branches of the superfamily Hominoidea: the gibbons, or lesser apes; and the hominids, or great apes.

• The family Hylobatidae, the lesser apes, include four genera and a total of sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon and the siamang, all native to Asia. They are highly arboreal and bipedal on the ground. They have lighter bodies and smaller social groups than great apes.
• The family Hominidae, known collectively as the great apes, includes orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans;[1][2][3][4] alternatively, this family clade is also known as the hominids. There are seven extant species of great apes: two in the orangutans (genus Pongo), two in the gorillas (genus Gorilla), two in the chimpanzees (genus Pan), and a single extant species, Homo sapiens, of modern humans (genus Homo).[5][6]"

What part of traits do humans have that mean that they are not apes.

There is a change of kind in evolution. We HAVE to have change of kind of we came from a common ancestor. Apes have not always existed according to evolution. They came from something else. Follow the line all the way back to the beginning of life and one thing evolved into all w have today. Unless evolution is claiming that millions of different things crawled out the primordial ooze to evolve into all the creatures we have today. If apes and man have a common ancestor we came from the same thing which at sometime slowly evolved into something it was not in the beginning. Spiders monkeys humans birds fish and all creatures great and small all evolved from from one thing according to evolution. And if millions of different things,began to evolve from things that climbed out of the water onto land there is no proof of that either.

Creationists cannot even define "kind". Until they come up with a working definition my claim is right. There is no change of kind in evolution. The ancestor that we share with other apes would be classified as an ape today. There is no "change of kind", since you and I are both apes.

Every single piece of evidence that evolutionists espouse is nothing more than an interpretation of what they find which is based upon a belief system that says evolution is true. It remains an assumption until proof is found. That is the key to science. Until then it is only an hypothosis until they can prove it by observation and experimentation. And no one has been able to do that with evolution since it is a random event and turns one thing into something else.

This too is wrong. It is the only working interpretation of the evidence. By demanding "proof" you only demonstrate your ignorance of how science works. There is no "proof" in science. Now if ones standards are "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then evolution has been "proven" many times over. Remember, there is scientific evidence for evolution, there is no scientific evidence for creation.

All creatures do evolve in a fashion. Whether it's growing more hair or fat in a folder climate, or its digestive system changes, to consume the food of its local. But that is not proof of then type of evolution espoused as a hypothosis as to how we came to be from whatever There was in the very beginning.

That is no evolution. And one cannot refute an idea because one is unable to understand that idea. That argument was a strawman argument and an extraordinarily weak one.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We have a soul and a spirit.

Also, humans say we were made from the dust of the earth: "glorified apes" deny it.

Solomon had apes available for study ...

1 Kings 10:22 For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.

... and concluded ...

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Notice also that evolution here is referred to as an "invention," not a "discovery"?

I did not ask you.

 

[AV1611VET]

I did not ask you.

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Notice here, where Paul calls evolution "endless genealogies" and says all it does is "minister questions"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Notice here, where Paul calls evolution "endless genealogies" and says all it does is "minister questions"?

Again: I did not ask you. I asked rjs330, and I would like them to answer my question.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again: I did not ask you. I asked rjs330, and I would like them to answer my question.

Am I keeping them [sic] from answering?