Birds Didn’t Evolve from Dinosaurs (Evos forced to invent an even older common ancestor!)

CEH ^ | June 9, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

June 9, 2009 — “The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.”  That statement is not being made by creationists, but by science reporters describing work at Oregon State University that cast new doubt on the idea that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs.  The main idea: their leg bones and lungs are too different.    

Science Daily’s report has a diagram of the skeleton showing...

[muawiyah]

Light is not at the Earth yet ~ not until God creates the Sun and Moon to provide it. Light is undoubtedly somewhere, just not here, so the plants wilt, die and perish before there are even animals to eat them.

Meanwhile the birds are flying around before landanimals exist. Raises questions about why birds have legs doncha' know.

[GodGunsGuts]

==When an evolutionary prediction is found wrong, the prediction is revised with a superior “that’s science” statement.

Quite right. It is never evolution being falsified, only certain outdated ideas about evolution.

[Publius6961]

Tell me again why so many people place so much faith in scientists?

Because, doofus, of its irrefutable simplicity:

First there was nothing...
...and then it exploded!

Go ahead; try arguing with that!

[CharlesWayneCT]

Why do you think that “in theology”, there are not different ways of dealing with different things, with both ways being “correct”?

The bible is replete with examples of God chosing different methods to accomplish the same relative goals.

[allmendream]

Evolution contributes every day to the search for life saving medicine. It informs us why there are genetic variations that would respond differently to different medications. It informs us why a rat is a more relevant model species than a frog, and a monkey or ape is even better.

The concept of selection from random generation is used in a process called “directed evolution” to develop enzymes for industrial purposes.

Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such it explains facts and allows for predictions.

[allmendream]

Thanks! I like BOC. ;)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[G Larry]

Nice “source”.....I’ll stick with mine.

[gogogodzilla]

Which is why I have no problem with people saying ‘Show me the proof’ when confronting a scientist with a theory.

What I do have a problem with is the general, broad-brush attack on “scientists” for having a theory that hasn’t yet been proven.

“Scientists” makes no distinction... just as much as the MSM’s use of “social conservatives”.

But somehow it’s alright to defame and besmirch someone working on particle physics because an evolutionary biologist got something wrong.

[BrandtMichaels]

The ones being disrespected, defamed, and besmirched are the Christians and creationists. Did you ever wonder how much richer scientific knowledge would be if we left the schooling and science to the Christians — or at least shared these platforms w/ non-believers — since both school and science started out that way?

The problem as I see it is rather than allowing the competition of ideas to strengthen the minds of our progeny we’ve allowed bureaucarts (read smarmy self-righteous political rats) to take over the process and slowly marginalize the efforts brought about by Christians. It is a fact that this country continues to produce less and less learned graduates each and every year for the past 30-40 years and our math and science abilities are so atrocious that we must import those most capable from all over the world.

Those who place all their trust in science and/or try to place scientific knowledge above God’s wisdom make me want to puke.

[metmom]

What I do have a problem with is the general, broad-brush attack on “scientists” for having a theory that hasn’t yet been proven.

Nobody is making general broad-brush attacks on all scientists because some theories aren't proven.

What people are challenging is the demands that all science be given the same level of confidence when not all theories have the same level of support.

“Scientists” makes no distinction...

They should. Expecting the general public to accept all theories with the same level of confidence because some have higher levels of support than others, is wrong.

Teaching something as fact because something like gravity is considered fact is wrong.

Each theory should get a level of confidence due it, based on what supports it alone, not because other theories can be supported well.

But somehow it’s alright to defame and besmirch someone working on particle physics because an evolutionary biologist got something wrong.

No, it's not.

All scientific theories should be approached with skepticism until enough evidence is presented to firmly establish it.

If it's wrong to defame and besmirch one branch of science because of another branch, then by the same token, it's wrong to presume someone is right just because someone else is right.

So it's not hypocritical to use the technology from science that has proved it's reliability and express skepticism about other branches of science which have not proved themselves.

[metmom]

TE:Tell me again why so many people place so much faith in scientists?

P6961Because, doofus, of its irrefutable simplicity:

Scientists are irrefutably simple? No comment......

Could you try again to answer the question?

TE: First there was nothing... ...and then it exploded!

P6961:Go ahead; try arguing with that!

Go ahead. Explain where singularity came from and then go on to explain why something with the mass of the entire galaxy was able to escape it's own gravitational attraction and what the mechanism was that initiated the expansion.

[metmom]

Light is not at the Earth yet ~ not until God creates the Sun and Moon to provide it. Light is undoubtedly somewhere, just not here, so the plants wilt, die and perish before there are even animals to eat them.

But day an night had already been created.

Gen 1:14-19 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.

It doesn't mean that there wasn't light already there. ANd besides, if you're going to take a literal reading, plants will not shrivel up and die from lack of light in one day.

Meanwhile the birds are flying around before landanimals exist. Raises questions about why birds have legs doncha' know.

Only to an evo.

[seemoAR]

You must be very old if you have seen a dino run. Was it running with its tail dragging the ground or was it raised. ;0)

[allmendream]

Creationism isn't in a “competition of ideas” with science. The Biblical interpretation of Creationists is not up for debate or revision; they fully expect scientific findings to “bend the knee” to their interpretation at every turn (speed of light, radioisotopic decay, geology, biology, etc).

Science is in a unprecedented golden age of discovery and utilization, biology especially. Most scientists in the USA are people of faith, predominate faith being, like myself, Christian.

One of the reasons science education is so atrocious in the USA is because of those who “want to puke” when scientific findings upset their particular Biblical interpretation.

Replicable findings about the natural world is a part of God's wisdom; for God created the world and all things in it. You place your own sense of wisdom in Biblical interpretation over God's natural laws of reality.

The more educated one is, especially in science, the less likely they are to be a creationist.

[Kozak]

HMS Creation is found only in fairytales.

[Caramelgal]

The ones being disrespected, defamed, and besmirched are the Christians and creationists. Did you ever wonder how much richer scientific knowledge would be if we left the schooling and science to the Christians — or at least shared these platforms w/ non-believers — since both school and science started out that way?

Education and the scientific method pre-dates the Christian era. Western classical education and the scientific method are largely based on the Greek and Roman models. Christian monasteries and later the universities they founded were based on those models. Christians didn’t invent education or the scientific method.

I would also mention the number of scientists who are Jewish. So according to you, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Jonas Salk, Edward Teller and hundreds of other Jewish scientists should have been marginalized in their education and careers because they weren’t Christians (or we should have “at least shared the Christian platform with those non-believers”).

The problem as I see it is rather than allowing the competition of ideas to strengthen the minds of our progeny we’ve allowed bureaucarts (read smarmy self-righteous political rats) to take over the process and slowly marginalize the efforts brought about by Christians. It is a fact that this country continues to produce less and less learned graduates each and every year for the past 30-40 years and our math and science abilities are so atrocious that we must import those most capable from all over the world.

I agree that we have a problem in this country with producing enough math and science graduates but this is more a matter of quantity vs. quality.

When I worked for a pharmaceutical as an HR and payroll manager, the problem wasn’t that the American trained graduates weren’t qualified, it was more of a case that there weren’t enough of them so we did recruit from overseas – China and India primarily, although we also had a number of scientist and researches from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

The scientists from China and India were for the most part not Christians and their education was secular, ditto for the ones from Russia and Eastern Europe whether they were Christians or not. They were however all highly qualified as were their American trained co-workers.

[GodGunsGuts]

Talk about projection!

[metmom]

Science is in a unprecedented golden age of discovery and utilization, biology especially.

That's certainly a matter of opinion.

When one considers the advances made in the past with the limited knowledge that they had, I'd say the best thinkers and biggest advances were made when your average scientist had fewer resources available to him than today's average high school student.

It's easier to seem to make more discoveries now with the wealth of knowledge we have today but for the sheer brain power in innovative thinking, we've lost more than we can imagine.

One of the reasons science education is so atrocious in the USA is because of those who “want to puke” when scientific findings upset their particular Biblical interpretation.

Wrong. Creationism and Christianity have no detrimental effect on scientific investigation. You have to totally ignore history to believe that load. Not to mention that homeschools and private schools, which coincidentally teach creation along with evolution, consistently out perform public schools in standardized tests and SAT/ACT tests.

Also, if that were the case, the public schools should be improving over the years as creation has not legally been allowed to be taught in them for years, and yet that isn't happening.

There's no way that you can lay the blame for the state of science education at the feet of creationists in light it the stranglehold evolution has in the public school system. How can creation be affecting science when it's not even allowed to be taught?

In case you haven't noticed, with the monopoly evolution has had in the public schools, there's been no improvement in science education in the US compared to the rest of the world. How could that be when the teaching of the ToE and suppression of creation, is supposed to be the cure all for our abysmal ranking?

[allmendream]

That biology is in an unprecedented golden age of discovery and utilization is a matter of FACT not opinion.

That this discovery and utilization depends upon science and not creationism is also a matter of fact and not opinion.

The more educated one is the less likely they are to be a creationist. Making creationism the refuge of the uneducated.