Posted on 05/04/2005 12:32:23 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.
It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
"from clothes and computers, to yes, FAKE FOSSILS"
I have zero doubt that there are fake fossils, just as there are fake bibles, fake religions, etc.
The question is whether the preponderance of fossil finds are dominated by fakes and that that fakery has so clouded scientific reasoning that archaeologists can't discern between clones made by uneducated Chinese working in a factory (who would likely be working from a pattern), and the tons of finds scientists themselves have collected in the field.
Your conspiracy theory is not believable.
Tough call. Depends on whether you are talking about the words of the founder or the practices of the followers.
Why should I.?. go google.. Stop with the demented rants.. Oh! yeah.. I forgot..
Science is neither pursued nor argued in the same way as religion. Natural causes are known to be out there working, so there's nothing terribly faith-based about assuming they were doing the same sort of thing in the past.
Still, you appear to know nothing of it.
I presented no conspiracy. I merely stated that there are places that produce fakes, nothing more. read my posts.
I'm seldom accused of being an overachiever, so I'll gladly take it.
If someone says evolution is the same as marxism, stalinism, atheism, nazism, or whatever, I will respond in kind.
For heaven's sake, someone started an anti-Darwin thread a couple days ago that accused him of owning guns and being a hunter. He actually killed things. The horror!
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Sounds like the Big Bang, but that is a different topic.
Day 1. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Importantly, note that there is no “sun” and no “moon” at this time. Hence, our concept of a 24 hour day is NOT APPLICABLE at this point in history. Indeed, it is not clear that the Earth-as-a-globe and universe as we know it today was formed yet — just light and dark (light and dark matter?) Indeed, I would encourage people to go look up the Hebrew word “etres” (“earth” — very flexible word) at this time.
Day 2. And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
Now the atmosphere is getting going in the way we understand. Probably a bit like Venus, quite nasty.
And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
Sounds a bit like continental drift.
Day 3. Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
OK, plants first. Consistent with most theories of evolution.
Day 4. And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
Hmm, now we have a Copernican solar system. The conflict between “plants first” and “sun second” is what got Galileo in trouble. Surely you're not a flat-Earther, too?
A likley answer is, of course, that “light” needed by the plants came on the first “day.” A theoretical physicist would probably tell you the light is coming from glowing plasma from an yet-to-be formed, but still darn hot and bright, Sun-to-be (which is consistent if the other stars are not around, too, as indicated by the lack of other visible stars).
Day 5. And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
Your argument is that some unified theory of evolution has land animals coming before birds. The false assumption there is IS THAT THERE IS NO UNIFIED THEORY of evolution. The details have, in no way, been worked out. I’ve seen flying fish. No reason to think that the leap to the air may have been made before crawling onto land.
Importantly also, note it says “winged bird.” Doesn’t talk about “winged mammals” such as bats, that most argue evolved from rodents.
Day 6, part I. And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Now land animals. After fish. Consistent with most theories of evolution.
Day 6, part II. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Man after animals. Consistent with evolution.
Importantly, in no place here, does it get into the details, just that God did it.
What has that got to do with the scientific problems of darwinism?
Xenudidit place mark
I dunno about yer creationists, or yer genesis..
but I am unconvinced of darwinian alchemy from
simple base to complex value, by mere chance.
Good question. Why do creationists insist on attacking Darwin instead of ideas? There have been at least half a dozen threads started in the last month that attack Darwin's racism, his gun collection, his taste in feather boas, you name it.
Can you name one fake fossil in the last hundred years that has been written up and accepted in a scientific journal?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.