all right, lets look at it, what similar species was it similar to? and get times etc, otherwise that could just be a single organism that was created and didnt macro evolve into that Archaeopteryx
If you honestly want to know some other views about dinosaurs, and other creationism questions, I challenge you to visit: http://www.answersingenesis.org/
There is a specific section on dinosaurs here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp
This thread will probally be hi-jacked by Christian haters anyways, so if you really want some other views on this, check out the site, and keep an open mind.
There is a specific section on dinosaurs here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp
This thread will probally be hi-jacked by Christian haters anyways, so if you really want some other views on this, check out the site, and keep an open mind.
it had the basic physiology of dinosaurs of the time. However, it did not have the more "advanced" physiology of known birds of today. It was not able to "fly" per se just as the Pterodactyl was not able to fly. It glided but always lost altitude.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/b … teryx.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/b … teryx.html
Archaeopteryx is all bird. It was made to fly. Its not half bird half reptile. I havent done much research on micro evolution on a larger time scale. Darwin studied the finch, he saw that their beaks changed sizes in a drought through natural selection. So he thought a this was an example of evolution happening. But the beaks returned to the size they were when the drought ended. If you did this to every part of the finchs body it would be micro evolution but it would never become macro. Not every change will be a permanent one that will give it an advantage.PuckMercury wrote:
I didn't take it that you were. I was challenging your posted logic, not you specifically.
Look at Archaeopteryx.
I think you were right when you stated that if people were to read the link they would need to 'keep an open mind'. LOLRepent wrote:
If you honestly want to know some other views about dinosaurs, and other creationism questions, I challenge you to visit: http://www.answersingenesis.org/
There is a specific section on dinosaurs here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp
This thread will probally be hi-jacked by Christian haters anyways, so if you really want some other views on this, check out the site, and keep an open mind.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-07-29 15:46:51)
It's all liberal propaganda brother. Clutch that bible tight when you sleep tonight.SEREMAKER wrote:
well explain the theory that we came from monkeys when you don't see any half ape half man now a days (I don't mean those really hairy guys either) but "if" we evolved why aren't monkeys still evolving or humans- why aren't we evolving into "mutants"
Seriously, who says we aren't evolving into "mutants"? Mutation is the driving force in evolution, and the reason we have progressively grown more upright in our gradual perfection of bepedalism; grown taller, with less overall body hair and a skull that has gradually grown in size to encompass an expanding brainsize over many(!) generations. But maybe that last mutation didn't kick in for all those Creationists. You guys aren't as mutant as the rest of us. Be proud.
archaeopteryx is not all bird. Most notable are teeth and bone structure, most notably composition and sternum design.
the bible was a story made to keep the people under control plain and simple (and i know i'm getting flamed for this)
I don't think it's fair to assume the Bible, or the stories it came from, started out as a way to control the masses, but in later times, it definitely began to accomplish that goal. I mean, THE KING JAMES VERSION of the Bible? Jews speaking in ye Olde English? Ugh.
Last edited by -CARNIFEX-[LOC] (2006-07-29 15:50:35)
+1 to youmanitobapaintballa wrote:
the bible was a story made to keep the people under control plain and simple (and i know i'm getting flamed for this)
Its not 100% like todays bird, buts its not a reptile-bird missing link. There is nothing leading up to it. This is just another example of evolutionists taking animals that have some similarities and linking them up with their imagination. Another great example of this is the "evolution of the horse".PuckMercury wrote:
archaeopteryx is not all bird. Most notable are teeth and bone structure, most notably composition and sternum design.
Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-07-29 15:55:09)
which is again defining evolution and confining it to an impossible scope which serves to defeat any example qed.
That's the entire point of evolution, there is a point at which differences manifest themselves in such magnitude and pervasive numbers that a new species is the result. To say that it is NOT evolution because it IS a new species entirely defies the point and object of the theory of evolution in the first place.
That's the entire point of evolution, there is a point at which differences manifest themselves in such magnitude and pervasive numbers that a new species is the result. To say that it is NOT evolution because it IS a new species entirely defies the point and object of the theory of evolution in the first place.
it make more sense then "god" creating the world in 7 days, i mean seriously think of how unreasonable it is.JaMDuDe wrote:
Its not 100% like todays bird, buts its not a reptile-bird missing link. There is nothing leading up to it. This is just another example of evolutionists taking animals that have some similarities and linking them up with their imagination. Another great example of this is the "evolution of the horse".PuckMercury wrote:
archaeopteryx is not all bird. Most notable are teeth and bone structure, most notably composition and sternum design.
God days ( the seven day creation thingy ) are exactly 0.987675 billion years. Dinosaurs are Satans spawn meant to trick man into believing that the Earth wasn't created in seven days.
But, duh, God days are like dog years in reverse, so they can TOTALLY coexist.
But, duh, God days are like dog years in reverse, so they can TOTALLY coexist.
my head hurts. ATG, that just ... hurts.
Still doesn't address the lack of any mention of it by religious documents outside the possible allusion to "bohemoths"
Still doesn't address the lack of any mention of it by religious documents outside the possible allusion to "bohemoths"
I believe that God created different species, and some have some minor similarities because they are living on the same planet. Humans take these small similarities and link them up with their imagination and say they have a common ancestry. Often there isnt much physical evidence linking animals together.PuckMercury wrote:
which is again defining evolution and confining it to an impossible scope which serves to defeat any example qed.
That's the entire point of evolution, there is a point at which differences manifest themselves in such magnitude and pervasive numbers that a new species is the result. To say that it is NOT evolution because it IS a new species entirely defies the point and object of the theory of evolution in the first place.
pointing out biological similarities as a function of a planet or even of a particular ecosystem are entirely independant of physiological similarities as a function of adaptation.
We're all carbon bases life forms. We all breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Yes, at that most basic level we are all similar as a function of the composition of Earth. I am addressing far more microscopic similarities changing on a relatively macroscopic scale.
We're all carbon bases life forms. We all breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Yes, at that most basic level we are all similar as a function of the composition of Earth. I am addressing far more microscopic similarities changing on a relatively macroscopic scale.
If I was going to get all nuts I would argue this point as some creatures such as certain crabs have a copper based blood system that is completly alien to us. Some plant life uses heat to create a sort of faux photo synthesis and has acid coursing through it's body.PuckMercury wrote:
We're all carbon bases life forms. We all breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. .
We are a happenstance of nature and our survival hangs on a thread of delicate enviromental balances. We exist now in a period of relative calm on Earth, geologically speaking. And thats why we are here.
Man will not likely exist in a million years unless he escapes earth and our silly definitions of the Universe will go extinct with us.
herrr_smity wrote:
they cant co-exist.
by all means, get all technical. That is the point of such an area of a forum after all. I must say I was entirely unaware of the physiology of crabs you brought up. Without doing research on my own at this point, I'll just have to take it on faith. <see what I did there??>
as for plants, I was speaking of animal life as opposed to plant life. Plant life functions in the opposite manner anyway as they inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. A rather critical element of our ecosystem Earth I might add.
EDIT-
To those who simply state that they can not coexist, I ask for more information. They obviously do co-exist as dinosaurs are known to have existed and creationists still exist. They are obviously diametrically opposed point of views. I'm really curious as to the logic process that does or does not go through a creationist's mind. Is it willful ignorance (ostrich with its head in the ground) or a rationalization?
as for plants, I was speaking of animal life as opposed to plant life. Plant life functions in the opposite manner anyway as they inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. A rather critical element of our ecosystem Earth I might add.
EDIT-
To those who simply state that they can not coexist, I ask for more information. They obviously do co-exist as dinosaurs are known to have existed and creationists still exist. They are obviously diametrically opposed point of views. I'm really curious as to the logic process that does or does not go through a creationist's mind. Is it willful ignorance (ostrich with its head in the ground) or a rationalization?
Last edited by PuckMercury (2006-07-29 16:31:47)
How can you tell that humankind is still evolving? If a baby is born with something extra, don't they usually undergo surgery to correct that "problem"? Science is awful contradictory in that way.
because religious people are arrogant and well... stupid
well if the bible is the only source of truth in the world, then i guess that man are made of mud and women are created by the rib of Adam.
if you listen to the creasionist you will see that all science is unneccecary since we already have the grate big book of knowledge.
if you listen to the creasionist you will see that all science is unneccecary since we already have the grate big book of knowledge.
on top of the grate big book, we have an even bigger great book. ;-)
Or, *gasp*, is it possible that a series of slight changes combined with environmental pressure to adapt has led to the diversity of species we see today? No, no that doesnt make sense. Obviously its all the result of an omnipresent super-entity that created all life through a sheer act of will and then sent his corporeal son down to Earth to die for our sins so that we might enter a eternal paradise that noone has ever seen or returned from.JaMDuDe wrote:
I believe that God created different species, and some have some minor similarities because they are living on the same planet. Humans take these small similarities and link them up with their imagination and say they have a common ancestry. Often there isnt much physical evidence linking animals together.PuckMercury wrote:
which is again defining evolution and confining it to an impossible scope which serves to defeat any example qed.
That's the entire point of evolution, there is a point at which differences manifest themselves in such magnitude and pervasive numbers that a new species is the result. To say that it is NOT evolution because it IS a new species entirely defies the point and object of the theory of evolution in the first place.
Yes. That makes much more sense. Now, who's using their imagination?