Dinosaur-Bird Flap Ruffles Feathers

Yahoo!News ^ | October 10, 2005 | E.J. Mundell

[mlc9852]

MONDAY, Oct. 10 (HealthDay News) -- Head to the American Museum of Natural History's Web site, and you'll see the major draw this fall is a splashy exhibit on dinosaurs.

And not just any dinosaurs, but two-legged carnivorous, feathered "theropods" like the 30-inch-tall Bambiraptor -- somewhat less cuddly than its namesake.

The heyday of the theropods, which included scaly terrors like T. rex and velociraptor, stretched from the late Triassic (220 million years ago) to the late Cretaceous (65 million years ago) periods.

[Junior]

Well, there are always those feral chickens...

[jayef]

For the sake of SO MANY in this world, I hope you're right!

[Pure Country]

Give it up Ichneumon, you're sounding like an idiot. You probably still believe the scientists who told my mom to keep the kids inside because polio comes out of the ground and if they don't go outside, they won't get it. Don't know how old you are, but I'm 55 and that's what the "scientists" told in my youth. Oh yes, and be sure and put heat on sprains, oh no, now it's cold, what will it be next?

Science is guesswork, at best, when it comes to trying to prove evolution. Why is it guesswork...because they just keep floating new theories hoping that one will stick in the minds of men. Guesswork of men? Word of God? No Brainer.

[Ichneumon]

Give it up Ichneumon, you're sounding like an idiot.

Wow, what a masterful rebuttal. I'm awed by your intellect and your mastery of the evidence you have marshalled to support your position.

You probably still believe the scientists who told my mom to keep the kids inside because polio comes out of the ground and if they don't go outside, they won't get it.

You probably believe that was an intelligent refutation of what I've actually written.

Science is guesswork, at best, when it comes to trying to prove evolution.

Wrong, it's based on overwhelmingly massive amounts of evidence, research, and independently cross-confirming validating tests. But hey, enjoy your fantasies.

Why is it guesswork...because they just keep floating new theories hoping that one will stick in the minds of men.

Wrong again. But hey, just for fun, let's give you an opportunity to show off your "legend in your own mind" knowledge of evolutionary science, shall we? Name two things that Darwin wrote in "Origin of Species" which have subsequently had to be revised with a "new theory". Go for it. I can't think of *any*, personally, but you seem to have hallucinated a few, so let us know what they are.

(Be careful, this is a trap. I'm telling that in advance, knowing that you'll *still* fall right into it if you attempt to respond.)

Guesswork of men? Word of God? No Brainer.

[Liberal Classic]

You wrote:
Far be it for me to interrupt, but I thought you mind find this quote interesting.

Then you gave this citation:
I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly included them....” Dr. Colin Paterson, British Museum of Natural History

Quote-mining alert!

This is yet another quote ripped out of context and used to bolster an argument 180 degrees from the author's intent.

[js1138]

Your shtick gets old and boring pretty fast.

We seem to be experiencing a recrudescence of ALS syndrome.

[jayef]

I always get a laugh out of you guys. Ichneumon's an idiot, you say? Because he's a scientist and well . . . scientists have been wrong in the past. That's hilarious.

[Oztrich Boy]

Besides, having a wing doesn't mean that a bird can fly. Think of the ostrich, dodo bird, penguin...

Penguins fly. They just do it in a denser fluid than air.

[Join Or Die]

No problem, we'll most likely never agree or convince each other "our" way is the right way, but we have to live in the same world.

My only real concern in the matter is that if I have kids I want to make sure they are introduced to science and faith as seperate matters and leave it up to them how to balance the two in their lives.

I for one as an agnostic don't really see the major conflict between the two, but I guess science is a threat to some people's religious views, which I see more as a problem with the religion than the science.

[Oztrich Boy]

And you think I care what you think or believe?

You tell stories of your adventures in the halls of the evolutionists and don't care whether those stories sound credible? That is not logical.

[PatrickHenry]

Your performance here may have produced yet another specimen for the THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM section of The List-O-Links:

NEW post 48 by newsgatherer on 11 Oct 2005. When you say millions and millions of years, you are calling God a liar!

[Alkhin]

As someone with a degree in Anthropology, but also now tries to follow Christ in my own faulty way, I stand by the both of you. Its as if creationists do not ever hear the words "scientific method" which was, by the way, begun by those of the most serious spirtiual communities, monasteries and monks. The creationists love to use the Bible for the wrong purposes.

best
Alkhin

[Alkhin]

Are you willing to say the same thing to the Jews, who were the first to write the book of Genesis? Are you willing to sit and listen to what THEY have to say about the literal interpretation of Genesis? Are you willing to accept that Jews, those first people in communion with God, have much more intrinsic and deeper meaning in the book of Genesis? I dare you to ask them what they have to say about the foundations of their cosmology, the Kabbalah. And no, Madonna has nothing at all to do with that. She is a pretentious fool being led by New Agers who use the rich thought of the Kabbalah for commercial purposes.

Are you willing to ask these questions AND hear the answers? Or are you so convinced of your own superiority? God gaves us brains to THINK as well as hearts and souls to feel. From your comments, I dont think you are using the tool God gave you, and that alone is a sin.

[joeclarke]

Ichneumon says;
Is there any particular reason you're blatantly lying? You're obviously making things up that never happened. No museum guide anywhere would every be so stupid as to say that the dinosaurs died out "between 16.7 and 100 million years ago". Even most gradeschool kids know that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period. Please don't post your fantasies as if they were actual anecdotes. Bearing false witness is a sin."

This is why evolutionists cannot be trusted. He claims that "no museum guide anywhere would be so stupid..." So he has surveyed every museum guide? That kind of generalization is what evolution is all about. They show us a timeline of 18 Billion years and tell us to believe it without scientific witnessing, experimentation or fact - pretending to be knowledgeable about every minute of those 18 Billion years. What a racket! Who needs to teach IDs when there are so many holes in evilution.

[newsgatherer]

you are quoting from his book I am qouting from a letter he wrote in responce to a letter he recieved asking where the missiong links were in his book.

[newsgatherer]

Are you willing to say the same thing to the Jews, who were the first to write the book of Genesis? Are you willing to sit and listen to what THEY have to say about the literal interpretation of Genesis? Are you willing to accept that Jews, those first people in communion with God, have much more intrinsic and deeper meaning in the book of Genesis? I dare you to ask them what they have to say about the foundations of their cosmology, the Kabbalah. And no, Madonna has nothing at all to do with that. She is a pretentious fool being led by New Agers who use the rich thought of the Kabbalah for commercial purposes.

Are you willing to ask these questions AND hear the answers? Or are you so convinced of your own superiority? God gaves us brains to THINK as well as hearts and souls to feel. From your comments, I dont think you are using the tool God gave you, and that alone is a sin.

I ask Jews those questions daily, I am willing to listen to anyone. What I am not willing to do is be insulted. I will debate, but I will not argue, I will listen but I will not be insulted.

As for the Jews interpretation, I will ask you a question if I may.

Can you find even one Hebrew scholar who does not believe that the day in Genesis one is a literal 24 hour day? I'll even accept one who supports evolution.

The Hebrew word of day is Yowm, in Genesis one is clarified with a number before it, one the first Yom... etc.

Let me show you what I mean.

1 ¶ In the beginning God <'elohiym> created <'eth> the heaven and <'eth> the earth <'erets>.

2 And the earth <'erets> was without form , and void ; and darkness was upon the face of the deep . And the Spirit of God <'elohiym> moved upon <`al> the face of the waters .

3 ¶ And God <'elohiym> said <'amar>, Let there be light <'owr>: and there was light <'owr>.

4 And God <'elohiym> saw <'eth> the light <'owr>, that it was good : and God <'elohiym> divided the light <'owr> from the darkness .

5 And God <'elohiym> called the light <'owr> Day , and the darkness he called Night . And the evening <`ereb> and the morning were the first <'echad> day .

6 ¶ And God <'elohiym> said <'amar>, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters , and let it divide the waters from the waters .

7 And God <'elohiym> made <`asah> the firmament , and divided the waters which <'aher> were under the firmament from the waters which <'aher> were above <`al> the firmament : and it was so .

8 And God <'elohiym> called the firmament Heaven . And the evening <`ereb> and the morning were the second day .

9 ¶ And God <'elohiym> said <'amar>, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto <'el> one <'echad> place , and let the dry land appear : and it was so.

10 And God <'elohiym> called the dry land Earth <'erets>; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas : and God <'elohiym> saw that it was good .

11 And God <'elohiym> said <'amar>, Let the earth <'erets> bring forth grass , the herb <`eseb> yielding seed , and the fruit tree <`ets> yielding <`asah> fruit after his kind , whose <'aher> seed is in itself, upon the earth <'erets>: and it was so.

12 And the earth <'erets> brought forth grass , and herb <`eseb> yielding seed after his kind , and the tree <`ets> yielding <`asah> fruit , whose seed was in itself, after his kind : and God <'elohiym> saw that it was good .

13 And the evening <`ereb> and the morning were the third day .

14 ¶ And God <'elohiym> said <'amar>, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night ; and let them be for signs <'owth>, and for seasons , and for days , and years :

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light <'owr> upon the earth <'erets>: and it was so.

16 And God <'elohiym> made <`asah> two great lights ; the greater light to rule the day , and the lesser light to rule the night : he made the stars also.

17 And God <'elohiym> set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light <'owr> upon the earth <'erets>,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night , and to divide the light <'owr> from the darkness : and God <'elohiym> saw that it was good .

19 And the evening <`ereb> and the morning were the fourth day .

Now, there are some respected Christian and Hebrew scholars who still try to justify by saying that in Genesis one Yowm is really “era” or thousand years. Neither of these float because of two things. First even if it were thousands of years, which it isn’t, and I’ll show you why in a moment, thousands of years are not long enough for evolution, they have to have billions of years.

Now to why yowm is not anything other than a literal 24 hour day in Generis one.

IN Exodus twenty we have God not speaking, but writing, He wrote the tablets with His own finger. They are called the Ten Commandments. Not one Jewish theologian that I know of disputes that God wrote the Ten Commandments Himself with His own finger on tablets of stone.

This is what they, the tablets, say on the issue of a literal six day week.

8 Remember the sabbath day , to keep it holy .

9 Six days shalt thou labour <`abad>, and do <`asah> all thy work :

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God <'elohiym>: in it thou shalt not do <`asah> any work , thou, nor thy son , nor thy daughter , thy manservant <`ebed>, nor thy maidservant <'amah>, nor thy cattle , nor thy stranger that is within thy gates :

11 For in six days the LORD made <`asah> heaven and earth <'erets>, the sea , and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day : wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day , and hallowed it.

So, in Exodus twenty we have verification, by God Himself that yes indeed He meant six literal 24 hour days, for can you imagine the uproar if what cause if what He meant was six one thousand year days. Imagine working 6,000 years than take a 1000 years off. Get’s even funnier when you substitute days with eons.

Hope that helps,
Jake

[Matchett-PI]

"John M. Rensberger, former curator of paleontology at the Burke Museum at the University of Washington, Seattle, called Feduccia's paper "the best presentation" he's seen yet of the argument that birds did not descend from theropods. But he agreed with Xu that Feduccia's theory has flaws. Regarding alleged differences in bird and theropod hand morphology, both he and Wu said scientists are still debating whether birds display the 1-2-3 digit arrangement or the 2-3-4. "It really hasn't been proven one way or the other," he said. .." ~ vannrox (quoting Rensberger)

I'm a "creationist", but not a "Young Earth Creationist" (see my profile page for details if interested), however it seems to me as if the YEC, Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati - [B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M. Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist AiG (Australia)] - makes some very valid points here:

Under this heading at bottom of commentary posted here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0128feathered.asp

See: Postscript: Feduccia v Creationists

[snip]

"The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If that’s not evolution in action, I do not know what is." ~ Feduccia

Wow, so the best proof of goo-to-you evolution he can come up with is corn turning into corn?!

But he has yet to prove that this is an increase in information, which would be required to turn scales into feathers or a reptile lung into a bird lung (something Feduccia never explains in his encyclopaedic book The Origin and Evolution of Birds10).

Rather, this is yet another example of sorting or loss of previously-existing genetic information­this sort of change is in the opposite direction from evolution (see The evolution train’s a-comin’).

Note also a common phenomenon. An evolutionist who is an expert in one field thinks that the best evidence for evolution is in a totally different field, in which he does not speak as an authority.

For example, a palaeontologist says, ‘The fossil record shows that most creatures appear fully formed, and an extreme rarity of transitional forms. But the embryologists have shown that early embryos look alike, which proves evolution.’

But an embryologist says, ‘Richardson showed that Haeckel faked the drawings purporting to show embryonic similarity. But the molecular biologists have shown that the similarity of DNA points to evolution from a common ancestor’.

However, the molecular biologist says, ‘There are huge differences in DNA sequences; contradictory phylogenies; and intricate biological machinery, e.g. the rotary motors of the bacterial flagellum and F1-ATPase. But the paleontologists have shown that the fossils show an evolutionary sequence.’

...Feduccia stated:

The difference between feathers and scales is very, very small. You can transform bird scutes [the scales on bird feet] into feathers with the application of bone morphogenic protein.

This totally misses the point that the cells from which scutes are formed have the genetic information for feathers already present, but turned off. Somehow the chemical induced the genes coding for feathers to switch back on.

Feduccia’s ‘evidence’ offers not the slightest support for the idea that the genetic information for feathers arose where none previously existed.

It would be a totally different matter if bone morphogenic protein could transform scales into feathers on a reptile, which has no genetic information for feathers!

Feduccia’s claim parallels an earlier misinformed claim that retinoic acid (vitamin A) could turn scales into feathers. See Putting Feathers on Reptiles for further explanation, and for electron micrographs showing the immense differences between feathers and scales. Also, feather proteins ( -keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins ( -keratins).11

These simple mistakes by Feduccia once more illustrate the fact that even world-class experts are usually laymen outside their own field. ...

Conversely, the major propagandists for evolution tend to be atheistic story-tellers like Richard Dawkins or ‘political animals’ like fellow atheistic anthropologist Eugenie Scott

[jayef]

That's not all he said. The other thing he said was that no museum guide would recite creationist cant. If they did, they should be (and almost certainly would be) fired from their job immediately. Is this clear to you now?

[newsgatherer]

You know, I'm getting a bit tired of you calling me a liar, you had best be able to defend it.

Do you know the guide I am referring to?

Where you there?

Do you know every guide in ever museum in the world?

Do you know any of the kids or parents that were there?

If not, I do think you are making a lot of assumptions, but them again, assuming that all started with nothing and that nothing became a frog and over millions and millions of years that frog became your great, great, granddaddy 2 zillions times removed (a monkey), makes me think that you can assume just about anything and given enough time you can convince yourself that it is true, that it is a fact, even science.

[Free Baptist]

"Look, son, I'm sure you believe that, because the creationist propaganda factories produce that lie over and over again, and you made the mistake of believing it. But it's not true. And while there may be a few confused idiots in with "credentials" who have bought into the same lies..."

It' amazing to amuzing how that evolutionary God-deniers have turned into fairly well-styled preachers...like many politically-correct religionists.