cambrian_exp Posted September 24, 2005 Posted September 24, 2005 well i found this from http://www.drdino.com From magazines to newspapers...from museums to textbooks...the concept that dinosaurs turned into birds is presented as a fact. Yet this concept, like all of the other supposed "facts" of evolution, is wrought with problems which are seldom exposed. Whenever dinosaurs with a bone structure remotely similar to birds are found, the link between dinosaurs and birds is assumed to exist. Bird fossils such as Archaeopteryx (right) are presented as proof of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of reptiles. Yet this whole idea of dinosaurs turning into birds is based more on faith than scientific fact. Here are a few observations which are seldom reported: Many recent dinosaur to bird "links" are "dated" between 120-140 million years. Yet archaeopteryx (which exhibits all the characteristics of a fully formed bird) is "dated" at 150 million years. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds (and evolutionist) states, "Paleontologist have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that." Birds have a totally different respiratory system than reptiles. For a reptilian respiratory system to change into an avian respiratory system would be analogous to a steam engine changing into an electric motor by randomly removing or modifying one component at a time, without disrupting the motor operation. It is simply an impossibility. The hollow bones, muscle design, keen eyesight, neurological commands, instincts, feathers, and a hundred other unique bird features are completely different from reptiles. In particular a bird's lungs and feathers display brilliant design. Either would be totally useless to perform their designed function unless complete. A step by step transformation from scale to feather makes a nice story but "the devil is in the details". And the details simply do not add up to a workable intermediate creature. The building blocks of scales and feathers aren't even the same-they are made from different types of protein! University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin sums up the presentation of this dinosaur to bird fossils best: "You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote this paper, (linking dinosaurs to birds) the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur." Those who reject the possibility of the sudden appearance of birds have no other alternative than to accept the inadequate evidence for evolution. However, the actual evidence for evolution does not support that this ever happened. Evolution is the only alternative (creation by God) has been arbitrarily eliminated. Rather than blindly accepting the latest evolutionary find, dig into the details and determine if real science proves that reptiles could have turned into birds or lifeless chemicals could have ever "come alive". An honest scientist will follow the data wherever it leads-even if it leads to an encounter with a personal creator. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ i really have problem with 1st point! how can ancestoral theropods evovle after birds?
ydoaPs Posted September 24, 2005 Posted September 24, 2005 [*']Birds have a totally different respiratory system than reptiles. For a reptilian respiratory system to change into an avian respiratory system would be analogous to a steam engine changing into an electric motor by randomly removing or modifying one component at a time, without disrupting the motor operation. It is simply an impossibility.ah, the "chemistry, physics, and natural selection don't exist; it's all random random random random Bob Dole random random random" strawman.
Mokele Posted September 24, 2005 Posted September 24, 2005 Many recent dinosaur to bird "links" are "dated" between 120-140 million years. Yes, that's because we found a particularly rich fossil bed with numerous bird and protobird fossils in it, and it dates to those times. Yet archaeopteryx (which exhibits all the characteristics of a fully formed bird) is "dated" at 150 million years. Bullshit. It does *not* exhibit many characteristics of birds, including the deeply keeled sternum, prominent furcula, pygostyle, and lack of teeth. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds (and evolutionist) states, "Paleontologist have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that." More creationist quoting out of context. Feduccia is arguing that Archaopteryx is a basal bird, and is, in effect, quibbling about precisely where on the evolutionary tree we draw the arbitrary line between "dinosaur" and "bird". Leave it to creationists to turn taxonomic quibbling into support for them via their usual intellectual dishonesty. # Birds have a totally different respiratory system than reptiles. For a reptilian respiratory system to change into an avian respiratory system would be analogous to a steam engine changing into an electric motor by randomly removing or modifying one component at a time, without disrupting the motor operation. It is simply an impossibility. Arguement from incredulity. They are not *totally* different, though they are very different. Numerous plausible routes for this have been elaborated over the years. # The hollow bones, muscle design, keen eyesight, neurological commands, instincts, feathers, and a hundred other unique bird features are completely different from reptiles. In particular a bird's lungs and feathers display brilliant design. Either would be totally useless to perform their designed function unless complete. A step by step transformation from scale to feather makes a nice story but "the devil is in the details". And the details simply do not add up to a workable intermediate creature. The building blocks of scales and feathers aren't even the same-they are made from different types of protein! More bullshit. Theropod dinosaurs and sauropods had hollow bones, and the trait arose indepentently in pterosaurs. The muscle design is only unique in one aspect, which *also* evolved twice, in birds and pterosaurs (bats have a different way of anchoring flight muslces). Keen vision actually typifies many reptile species. Neurological commands (aka behavior) are highly evolutionarily plastic, with closely related species sometimes exhibiting vastly different behaviors. Feathers were present in *most* theropod dinosaurs, albeit in a primitive form used for insulation. Evolution commonly adapts things evolved from one purpose to another, and has clearly done so here. University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin sums up the presentation of this dinosaur to bird fossils best: "You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote this paper, (linking dinosaurs to birds) the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur." See above. This is a taxonomic quibble, rooted in the controversy over cladistics. This is about the words we use, not the actual evolution of birds. Evolution is the only alternative (creation by God) has been arbitrarily eliminated. False dilemma. An honest scientist will follow the data wherever it leads-even if it leads to an encounter with a personal creator. Which is why there isn't a single creationist who deserves the title of 'honest scientist'. i really have problem with 1st point! how can ancestoral theropods evovle after birds? They didn't. The early ancestral theropod is Herrasaurus, which dates to 230 million years ago, almost 90 million years before Archeopteryx. Mokele
Mokele Posted September 24, 2005 Posted September 24, 2005 And with that, another thread on creationists and thier intellectually dishonest bullshit is closed.
Recommended Posts