When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[46AND2]

https://releasingthetruth.wordpress...troviruses-evidence-of-evolution-think-again/

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Please address the topic in your own words, and use links only as support for your arguments. Posting a bare link as a response is against the rules of this site. Also, please do so in the thread based on that topic, not here.

 

[Hoghead1]

When it comes,to,brain power I am way dumber than the evolutionary scientists. I couldn't hope to,outsmart those guys. I'm lucky to outsmart my kids sometimes. But evolution is not about brains. Its about belief. Evolutionists believe in evolution and that drives their work. Even though they have never seen actual evolution in progress nor have they been able to duplicate it or test it. How can they. By their own admission it takes a really long time. And no one has lived long enough to catalog or observe it. They just assume it because they believe it.

I choose however to believe God. Yep I fully admit I didn't see it either nor did anyone else. And creation obviously cannot be,duplicated. But the Bible says the wisdom of man is foolishness to God. We think we are,so smart when we contradict God, when in fact we are just being foolish. But then that has always been our way.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Yes, the Bible does talk about the foolishness of me. And I think that definitely applies to the Bible Belt mentality. They are always accusing others of being guilty here, when the exact, same thing applies to them. The SOP is that any scholar who dares disagree with the fundamentalist version of teh Bible is automatically written off as wrong, possessed by the Devil, etc. Fundamentalist Christianity is basically a man-made ideology and therefore fallible. So I say leave that for the old lady in Dubuque. I want to explore other, more promising alternatives.

 

[Hoghead1]

https://releasingthetruth.wordpress...troviruses-evidence-of-evolution-think-again/

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I would advise you to try an actual scientific site sometime.

 

[rjs330]

I think it was you who asked for laboratory evidence of evolution. OK, fine. Bacteria evolving into new species in the lab is a prime example here. Now you duck out and claim you want to see something else. Also, evolution definitely does not work in the way you think it does. It doesn't go directly from bacteria into fish. There were leads of intermediate steps. Your request shows you have a poor understanding of how evolution is understood to work.

No you misunderstood. By laboratory experiments is exactly what I said in my last post. You see I,know there are a lot of intermediate steps. But that's the problem. You can't duplicate Evolution without being involved with it. Evolution happened by chance. Once humans get involved in trying to prove evolution in a lab they have just injected,themselves into the equation this making it void. And by admitting you can't show actual evolution You have just shown the fallacy of the process. Evolution is a belief system. It happened therefore I believe it. Without the actual ability to observe the process or repeat it Without intervention. It actually cracks me up how crazy it,all is. Its such nonsense yet humans are,tied to it. The wisdom of man really is foolishness.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

Please address the topic in your own words, and use links only as support for your arguments. Posting a bare link as a response is against the rules of this site. Also, please do so in the thread based on that topic, not here.

Oops,sorry I,was actually responding to someone else's post. I neglected to reference here. My mistake.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Hoghead1]

No you misunderstood. By laboratory experiments is exactly what I said in my last post. You see I,know there are a lot of intermediate steps. But that's the problem. You can't duplicate Evolution without being involved with it. Evolution happened by chance. Once humans get involved in trying to prove evolution in a lab they have just injected,themselves into the equation this making it void. And by admitting you can't show actual evolution You have just shown the fallacy of the process. Evolution is a belief system. It happened therefore I believe it. Without the actual ability to observe the process or repeat it Without intervention. It actually cracks me up how crazy it,all is. Its such nonsense yet humans are,tied to it. The wisdom of man really is foolishness.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Chance, randomness, and indeterminacy are all pat of life. That is because of freedom. However, not all life is just chance. Not all evolution is assumed to happen just by chance. The fact that human experimenters were involved is strongly suggests that evolution requires a transcendental mind, i.e., God. In fact, I don't think evolution would be possible without God.

 

[rjs330]

I would advise you to try an actual scientific site sometime.

I would advise you to read this and look at all the reference materials listed and give an actual rebuttal. The truth here is that the original hypothesis of the virus has a boatload assumptions and maybes.

Here's the deal. Evolutionists post links I post links. I think evolutionist links are nonsense they think my links are nonsense.

Yet no one still can prove evolution because it's an unobservable unrepeatable process. Any more than I can prove creation because it is unobservable and unrepeatable.

I would advise you to try an actual scientific site sometime.

I would advise you to read this and look at all the reference materials listed and give an actual rebuttal. The truth here is that the original hypothesis of the virus has a boatload assumptions and maybes.

Here's the deal. Evolutionists post links I post links. I think evolutionist links are nonsense they think my links are nonsense.

Yet no one still can prove evolution because it's an unobservable unrepeatable process. Any more than I can prove creation because it is unobservable and unrepeatable.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Hoghead1]

I would advise you to read this and look at all the reference materials listed and give an actual rebuttal. The truth here is that the original hypothesis of the virus has a boatload assumptions and maybes.

Here's the deal. Evolutionists post links I post links. I think evolutionist links are nonsense they think my links are nonsense.

Yet no one still can prove evolution because it's an unobservable unrepeatable process. Any more than I can prove creation because it is unobservable and unrepeatable.

I would advise you to read this and look at all the reference materials listed and give an actual rebuttal. The truth here is that the original hypothesis of the virus has a boatload assumptions and maybes.

Here's the deal. Evolutionists post links I post links. I think evolutionist links are nonsense they think my links are nonsense.

Yet no one still can prove evolution because it's an unobservable unrepeatable process. Any more than I can prove creation because it is unobservable and unrepeatable.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I don't care what they post. Your remarks sent me a loud and clear message that you know little about science and evolution. You seem to be of the dubious opinion that you, as an unqualified lay person, know far, far more about science than all these scientists. To me, that is about the epitome of arrogance and also ignorance.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am kinda messing with you. I like using common terminology like theory and species etc because most folks understand what I am talking about. When one begins to parse words you lose sight of the main argument. Just keep it simple and most people can follow you.

Again I am messing with you on feathers. I'm sure there were dinosaurs with feathers. There were all kinds in very interesting creatures back then. It just shows the awesomeness of God's creative genious. But none of them prove evolution. They were all fully formed creatures however. They are only evolutionary because scientists want them to,be. There is no proof they evolved. Its guesswork and assumption at best.

And bacteria in a lab is supposed to be proof of Evolution? So,man in a controlled environment is able to show bacteria evolving into something completely different? Evolutionary hypotheses says creatures evolved from something completely different by chance. When you can get bacteria to evolve by chance into a,fish let me know. Because that is what evolution says happened. I know bacteria specifically isn't used in the hypothesis but you get my,point.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Evolution doesn't involve "partly formed creatures", that wouldn't even make sense. In arm evolution, all intermediates have some use, even if that use is not the same as the latest generation along that evolutionary path. Vestigial structures are rather quick to disappear, as maintaining them is a complete waste of energy and thus it is detrimental to have them.

This isn't Animorphs, you aren't ever going to see things like this in evolution

or crocoduck, or any other ridiculous malformed wretch a lot of creationists seem to think evolution requires, when in fact it is the opposite.

Also, your ignorance on what evolution even says is getting on my nerves. Fish did not evolve from bacteria. You'd know that if you actually read the material.

 

[Loudmouth]

The incorporation of genetics and Darwin's theory is known as "modern evolutionary synthesis." The physical and behavioral changes that make natural selection possible happen at the level of DNA and genes. Such changes are called mutations.

What do you think the theory part is for "mutation theory"? Afterall, mutations are observed to occur. They are facts, not theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

All that proves is that there were feathered dinosaurs.

What it proves is that there were species that had a mixture of bird and dinosaur features, otherwise known as a transitional species. The theory of evolution predicts which transitional species did exist and which did not exist. We can test those predictions by seeing if the fossil species we find fit the predicted pattern (which is a nested hierarchy or phylogeny).

When looking at the fossils you could see similarities to birds. So you could predict you might find some big dinosaur birds. That doesn't mean they evolved.

Why aren't dinosaur-bird transitional evidence that they evolved?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not smarter. But I admit my bias. I fully biased towards creationism. I believe that the Biblical account of creation is accurate. And I fully admit that neither I nor any other human alive witnessed it. I also admit that the human author of Genesis was not there either. I simply believe based on faith that that's The way it iccurred.

The problem with evolutionists is they won't admit What I admit.

That's because evolutionists aren't using faith. We are testing hypotheses, which is entirely different.

The theory of evolution predicts which mixture of features we should see in fossils and which we should not see. The pattern of shared and derived features that the theory predicts is called a nested hierarchy, or phylogeny. As it stands, every fossil we have found fits into the expected nested hierarchy of life. For example, we find fossils with a mixture of dinosaur and bird features but no fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features.

Since all of the evidence fits with the predictions made by the theory of evolution, we don't have to use faith. We have a supported theory.

That evolutionary theory is based upon a belief system, because they can't prove any of it.

I have 200,000 pieces of proof demonstrating that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-retrovirus-thread.7942101/

 

[Loudmouth]

To,me the epitome of hubris is for humans to say they know,more about how we came into,existence than God does.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

That is exactly the hubris that creationists have. They think they can read a story written in a book by men and tell God how he created the universe.

At least the scientists are using evidence from the creation itself to figure it out.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well at least you are admitting it is based on supposition and assumption.

The theory of evolution is based on observations and facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

So it's not a fact but it is a fact. Got it.

A theory is what we think something is, then by provable experimentation and observation it no longer becomes something we think. It becomes a fact.

Theories never become facts. Facts and theories are two different things.

Theories EXPLAIN the facts.

You have just demonstrated that you don't understand how science is done.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here's the deal. Evolutionists post links I post links.

I post information and my own explanation of the science, as in this thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-retrovirus-thread.7942101/

That's the difference. I actually understand the science enough to discuss it. I have yet to find a creationist who can do the same. Instead, I see posts like yours where you tell people to read about science that you don't understand, as if that proves something.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What do you think the theory part is for "mutation theory"? Afterall, mutations are observed to occur. They are facts, not theory.

Beneficial mutation are a theory.

 

[rjs330]

What it proves is that there were species that had a mixture of bird and dinosaur features, otherwise known as a transitional species. The theory of evolution predicts which transitional species did exist and which did not exist. We can test those predictions by seeing if the fossil species we find fit the predicted pattern (which is a nested hierarchy or phylogeny).



Why aren't dinosaur-bird transitional evidence that they evolved?

And you know this how? Oh yeah because you were there to observe it right? Its known as a transitional species because evolutionist theory wants it to be not because any one tested or observed it. What you actually had was a very interesting creature that existed at one time and went extinct. There is no proof it came from anything else.

Evolution doesn't involve "partly formed creatures", that wouldn't even make sense. In arm evolution, all intermediates have some use, even if that use is not the same as the latest generation along that evolutionary path. Vestigial structures are rather quick to disappear, as maintaining them is a complete waste of energy and thus it is detrimental to have them.

This isn't Animorphs, you aren't ever going to see things like this in evolution

or crocoduck, or any other ridiculous malformed wretch a lot of creationists seem to think evolution requires, when in fact it is the opposite.

Also, your ignorance on what evolution even says is getting on my nerves. Fish did not evolve from bacteria. You'd know that if you actually read the material.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

That's because evolutionists aren't using faith. We are testing hypotheses, which is entirely different.

The theory of evolution predicts which mixture of features we should see in fossils and which we should not see. The pattern of shared and derived features that the theory predicts is called a nested hierarchy, or phylogeny. As it stands, every fossil we have found fits into the expected nested hierarchy of life. For example, we find fossils with a mixture of dinosaur and bird features but no fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features.

Since all of the evidence fits with the predictions made by the theory of evolution, we don't have to use faith. We have a supported theory.



I have 200,000 pieces of proof demonstrating that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-retrovirus-thread.7942101/

That retrovirus stuff is all,junk. There are a TON of assumptions and maybes in that.

https://releasingthetruth.wordpress...troviruses-evidence-of-evolution-think-again/

It proof actually that man is so tied to the evolutionary belief system that they will,believe anything. It's funny really. Man thinks he's so smart when in fact he is a fool.

There is still no proof just assumption and supposition.

The wisdom,of man is foolishness to God.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

The theory of evolution is based on observations and facts.

What observation would that be? Have we found someone who watched a monkey turning into a human?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk