• 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.

When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,394
9,121
65
✟434,403.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
No matter how much evolutionists try their evidence never proves anything. Why? Because it's only proof because they say it is. Because they still can't duplicate it or test it. Evolution happened because
They say it happened. Evolution is all belief and assumption. No one has observed it and no one can duplicate it. Yes all those scientists BELIEVE in it and that drives their agenda. They accept evolution as a fact therefore everything they research is done with the idea to find evidence for evolution. Evolution can't be disproven because it can't be proven. Therefore it's a faith.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No matter how much evolutionists try their evidence never proves anything. Why? Because it's only proof because they say it is. Because they still can't duplicate it or test it. Evolution happened because
They say it happened. Evolution is all belief and assumption. No one has observed it and no one can duplicate it. Yes all those scientists BELIEVE in it and that drives their agenda. They accept evolution as a fact therefore everything they research is done with the idea to find evidence for evolution. Evolution can't be disproven because it can't be proven. Therefore it's a faith.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

If you don't want to accept the TOE that's up to you, no one's forcing you, rants like this will convince no one though. Where do you think the theory of evolution comes from, an assumption? How does that work? No, it came from observations of the real world, observations which can be verifed by anyone with the wherewithal to actual study them. It's the best explanation for the diverstity of life on Earth and you're implying that scientists have some sort of vested interest in clinging to it... you're wrong, they would stand to gain more to by coming up with an alternative that shows it to be false. Scientists accept it because, unlike you, they don't have an agenda and they actually understand the evidence.

I try not to mock Christianity on these boards but I can't help noticing the irony in what you say, if you exchanged the word 'evolution' for 'religion' in your post it would actually make more sense!
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
What I am getting at is often the phrase "humans are primates" is used to promote the idea that we and monkeys have a common ancestor.

The fact that complex eukaryotes fall into a nested hierarchy is being used as evidence for common ancestry since it is evidence for common ancestry.

My point is so what if we classified ourselves as primates. That doesn't mean we have a common ancestor anymore than classifying us as animals means we have a common ancestor with a dog.

Then why do creationists use that very argument? They think that if they can call two species by the same name, that this somehow means they are in the same created kind. A bird species changes over time. They claim it is microevolution because they are still birds. So why doesn't the same apply to primates, mammals, and vertebrates?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
No matter how much evolutionists try their evidence never proves anything. Why? Because it's only proof because they say it is.

Then please tell us why evolution would not produce a nested hierarchy. Please show us how the distribution of shared and derived features is not consistent with evolution. Please show us how there is not an overwhelming statistically significant correlation between the phylogenies based on DNA and morphology.

If you claim that these things are not evidence for evolution, THEN SHOW US WHY.

They say it happened. Evolution is all belief and assumption.

Phylogenies are not assumed and are not beliefs. They are directly observed.

No one has observed it and no one can duplicate it.

You don't observe or duplicate a theory. That's not how science works. Theories are not observations. Theories are explanations.

Yes all those scientists BELIEVE in it and that drives their agenda. They accept evolution as a fact therefore everything they research is done with the idea to find evidence for evolution. Evolution can't be disproven because it can't be proven. Therefore it's a faith.

We have evidence, not faith.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,144
✟349,292.00
Faith
Atheist
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,394
9,121
65
✟434,403.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
If you don't want to accept the TOE that's up to you, no one's forcing you, rants like this will convince no one though. Where do you think the theory of evolution comes from, an assumption? How does that work? No, it came from observations of the real world, observations which can be verifed by anyone with the wherewithal to actual study them. It's the best explanation for the diverstity of life on Earth and you're implying that scientists have some sort of vested interest in clinging to it... you're wrong, they would stand to gain more to by coming up with an alternative that shows it to be false. Scientists accept it because, unlike you, they don't have an agenda and they actually understand the evidence.

I try not to mock Christianity on these boards but I can't help noticing the irony in what you say, if you exchanged the word 'evolution' for 'religion' in your post it would actually make more sense!
All right give me a single example of an observed creature evolving into something it was not originally.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,394
9,121
65
✟434,403.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
The fact that complex eukaryotes fall into a nested hierarchy is being used as evidence for common ancestry since it is evidence for common ancestry.



Then why do creationists use that very argument? They think that if they can call two species by the same name, that this somehow means they are in the same created kind. A bird species changes over time. They claim it is microevolution because they are still birds. So why doesn't the same apply to primates, mammals, and vertebrates?
Well it because birds are still birds and monkeys are still,monkeys and humans are,still humans and lizards are still lizards. Robins don't mutate into eagles, monkeys don't mutate into humans and iguanas don't mutate into snakes. Not that difficult to understand really.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,245
7,493
31
Wales
✟430,331.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Well it because birds are still birds and monkeys are still,monkeys and humans are,still humans and lizards are still lizards. Robins don't mutate into eagles, monkeys don't mutate into humans and iguanas don't mutate into snakes. Not that difficult to understand really.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Where in the theory of evolution does it state that when animal A evolves from animal B, animal B has to die out?
Quick hint: nowhere!
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,394
9,121
65
✟434,403.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Then please tell us why evolution would not produce a nested hierarchy. Please show us how the distribution of shared and derived features is not consistent with evolution. Please show us how there is not an overwhelming statistically significant correlation between the phylogenies based on DNA and morphology.

If you claim that these things are not evidence for evolution, THEN SHOW US WHY.



Phylogenies are not assumed and are not beliefs. They are directly observed.



You don't observe or duplicate a theory. That's not how science works. Theories are not observations. Theories are explanations.



We have evidence, not faith.
Theories are explanations. Exactly! It's not a fact or a,provable assumption. It a guess based on what evolutionists want to believe. Common design is also an explanation and just as good a one as common ancestry. And has as much observable facts as evolution. In fact every single piece of evidence that evolutionists use to promote evolution could be used to promote common design. Not one piece of evidence can be shown to prove that something turned into something else eventually. Because it's not observed to happen and can't be duplicated. Its a theory and and explanation. Well my explanation is God created it all at the time whole and complete with everything it's own creature and he used common design for it all because he knew it would work best this way. That's my theory and all your phylogenetic evidence is evidence that he did it that way.




Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,394
9,121
65
✟434,403.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
That's not evidence of evolution. That's evidence of adaptation. The mouse is still a mouse and the fish is still a fish. It's an example of the incredible work of God's creation for creatures to adapt to their environment and still remain what they were created to be whether it's a fish or a mouse.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
All right give me a single example of an observed creature evolving into something it was not originally.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

LOL, shall I go into my garden with a camera and wait for a bird to turn into a mouse? I don't think you're taking this seriously.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Theories are explanations. Exactly! It's not a fact or a,provable assumption. It a guess based on what evolutionists want to believe. Common design is also an explanation and just as good a one as common ancestry. And has as much observable facts as evolution. In fact every single piece of evidence that evolutionists use to promote evolution could be used to promote common design. Not one piece of evidence can be shown to prove that something turned into something else eventually. Because it's not observed to happen and can't be duplicated. Its a theory and and explanation. Well my explanation is God created it all at the time whole and complete with everything it's own creature and he used common design for it all because he knew it would work best this way. That's my theory and all your phylogenetic evidence is evidence that he did it that way.




Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Yes, explanations of facts.

Have you actually looked into why nested hierarchies are evidence for evolution or do you just dismiss it out of hand?

Here's a short article:

http://duelingdogma.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/proving-evolution-post-4-nested.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,144
✟349,292.00
Faith
Atheist
That's not evidence of evolution. That's evidence of adaptation. The mouse is still a mouse and the fish is still a fish.
Yes - that's how evolution works. Each new species is only very slightly different from the species it has evolved from, and can be considered a sub-species of its parent species. It's only when speciation has happened many times in a lineage that the accumulation of changes between the original and its remote descendants, or between other extant branches of the original species, are sufficient that they may look like different kinds of creature - but that doesn't change their ancestral roots - so, for example, cetaceans are still mammalian species, despite having evolved to look like a different kind of creature from their terrestrial mammal ancestor and extant terrestrial mammal species.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,394
9,121
65
✟434,403.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Yes - that's how evolution works. Each new species is only very slightly different from the species it has evolved from, and can be considered a sub-species of its parent species. It's only when speciation has happened many times in a lineage that the accumulation of changes between the original and its remote descendants, or between other extant branches of the original species, are sufficient that they may look like different kinds of creature - but that doesn't change their ancestral roots - so, for example, cetaceans are still mammalian species, despite having evolved to look like a different kind of creature from their terrestrial mammal ancestor and extant terrestrial mammal species.
Prove it has occurred. Go back,to the beginning and show me where a creature began to,evolve into,something else. What was that creature? And then test it.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,394
9,121
65
✟434,403.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Yes, explanations of facts.

Have you actually looked into why nested hierarchies are evidence for evolution or do you just dismiss it out of hand?

Here's a short article:

http://duelingdogma.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/proving-evolution-post-4-nested.html
I dismiss it,out of hand because evolution is a false dogma. No,one has seen it on action and no one has been able to,duplicate it or observe it. It is a farce presented as science with nothing but supposition to show for it. Evolution has yet to,produce a single example of,actual evolution where something evolved into something it wasn't in the beginning.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,131
5,088
✟325,493.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Worth to duplicate this from a Youtube comment to here:

"1) Why don't you take me step by step how did the dinosaur became a bird . Please include all the fossil evidence"

I refer this to the answers to questions #2, 3, 4 and 5, but since you wanted fossils, here are a few:

Incusvasaurus, caudotheryx, Avimimus, Microvenator, Chirostenotes, Anzu, Protoaechaeopthery, Similicaudipteryx, Caudipteryx, Oviraptor, Citipati, Wulatelong, Khaan, Conchoraptor, Ajanciengenia, Heyuannia, Talos, Sinorhithoides, Gobinvenator, Troodon, Zanabazar, Mei, Byronosaurus, Confuschis, Microraptor, Epidexipteryx, Scansorioptery, Yi, Wellnhoferia, Jeholornis, Sapeornis, Confucisurnis, Yanoris, Balaur, Microraptor, Velociraptor, Buitenraptor, Sinornithosaurus, Protachera, Anchiorni, Jinfengopteryx, Sinovenator, Archaeopteryx, Paracoracias.

To mention a few I know of, but there are several hundreds, if not thousands, of them if you want more....

"2) How many physiological changes it needs to go through to turn into a bird?"


I am not an expert, but I would say 3.

But it depends on what you prefer to call a bird or bird like, most bird features are already present in Eumanorpatoria (including flight), so lose of teeth and tail and fusing the finger digits is all that is needed to be classified as a true bird, all the other bird characteristics was already present in dinosaurs since at least theropods, if not earlier.

If you saw a Oviraptorosaur today such as Avimimus you would confuse it and its behavior with a bird, but it isn't a bird far from. If you saw a Troodontid such as Anchiornis or Dromaeosaur such as Microraptor, you would swear it was a bird, but it isn't. Birds does not have three fingers, tails, teeth and four wings.

Oviraptorsaurs, Troodontids and Dromaeosaurs are not birds, even thou they look like birds to us, they are variation of feathered dinosaurs. Just like birds is another variation of feathered dinosaurs.

"3) How many changes in behavioral traits needs to developed to turn into a bird."


Nothing. They was already present in dinosaurs.

"4) How these changes were seamlessly administered without guidance?"


Not sure what you are asking about, but based on fossil evidence, it seams to be no plan at all, but every possible wired combination you can think of seams to have been tested out by evolution and it just so happen that the present form of feathered dinosaurs (dinosaurs with no teeth and tail, and fused fused finger digits) are the one that remains. I would not call the evolution of birds "guided" but more like a coincident ,that what we today call, birds happens to be the one group of all wired combination that survived.

"5) How many years did each step to be completed?"


They were already present in dinosaurs so they did not had to take any timer to be "completed" in birds since they already was there. You seams to think the step from dinosaurs to bird is a big jump of some sort, but it isn't, it was very gradual and smooth. A bird is a dinosaurs and what you call "bird features" and wonder how they evolved is actually dinosaur features. Birds are dinosaurs, because they have dinosaurs traits, birds never evolved from dinosaurs into bird - they have always been dinosaurs and still are, they are just a variation of dinosaurs (avian dinosaurs - compare this with avian mammals such as bats; you don't ask when bats evolved from mammals to bats do you, because you know they ARE mammals, don't you?). When you look at a bird today, that is pretty much how dinosaurs looked like back then as well (just like a bat looks like AND IS a mammal). Therefore "bird" traits never had to evolve in birds, just as bats never had to evolve mammal traits, because the traits was already present for hundred of millions of years before birds even existed.

What you like to call a "bird" is not an absolute things, but a matter of subjective definition. I refer this back to my answer of question #3.

Answer to the topic is 0, just like asking, when did monkeys/apes become humans, or canines become dogs, birds ARE dinosaurs, as humans are apes/monkeys :> Just a small nitpick.

And *laughs* anyone else do a quick check on the date of the first page just to make sure it's not necromancy?
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,131
5,088
✟325,493.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Feather are highly specialised things for flight.

actually they are more for wamrth and decoration originally if you look at the first dinosaurs to have them, you can't look at modern dinosaur feathers, the oldest evidence of feathers were back before the sauropod/therapod split, were they still used for flight back then?
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,131
5,088
✟325,493.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

i heard on a program this morning that birds are warm blooded and dinosaurs were reptiles, which are cold-blooded, and therefore birds would've never evolved from dinosaurs...there were some other things said, but i remember this the most.

i admit that my knowledge on dinosaurs and birds and the intricacies of each is quite limited.

i found this interesting however.

Dinosaurs were warmblooded and quasi warm blooded in the larger species, we can tell this by many featuers in their bodies and such, yes not all dinosaurs were true warmblooded, some of the larger sauropods for instance would have died of heatstroke from being fully warmblooded, but others were.
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,131
5,088
✟325,493.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The following don't even exist...
Ajanciengenia
Confuschis
Yanoris
Protachera

I like dinosaurs, loved the movies. Noticed Velociraptor was mentioned as evidence, my favourite dinosaur. However most from that list are just illustrations of dinosaurs with feathers but no actual fossil deposits showing they had feathers or showing fossils at all.

Did I miss something here?

ehhhh velociraptors have quill points on their bones, many dinosaurs have been found with feathers, some well enough to gusetimate their colouring by comparing to modern dinosaurs.
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,131
5,088
✟325,493.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No there aren't. Evolutionists use fully formed fossils and claim they are transitions because they believe in evolution. They don't know they are transitional fossils cause they were not there to observe the changes necessary for the offspring to evolve into something else. Its supposition and assumption. They don't know the creatures were not always the creatures for as long as they existed. Fossil evidence is only evidence that that particular creature existed at that time. It is not proof that it evolved from anything else. Unless you believe in evolution. Of so then everything is proof of evolution. Evolution is a dogma. It is not science.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Of course they are fully formed, what do you think transitional species would be?
 
Upvote 0