I'm not actually here to satisfy you Linda, people are here to give both sides of the argument. Your side is not the first and final say on the matter, however much you believe it to be so.



Apology accepted.



Linda, through many of my past posts, I have typed my own comments, have you misinterpreted it as all being copied and pasted? I feel as though I'm repeating myself ad nauseum here. There is nothing wrong with copying/pasting or getting information from books, plus adding your own comments through when you feel like it....I cannot figure out why you're accusing me of something that everybody including you does. I guess this is how you win arguments? Baiting people and using up a lot of energy doing so.



You speak as though the fly is surviving in an unfinished state of transition without considering the wings are exactly right for the needs of the fly. You've already decided that this is "half a wing" without considering the fact it cannot be "half" of anything if it's to be fully functional to the fly, because "half" insinuates a state of incompletion. Animals or insects that do not have their full faculties are sitting ducks literally. They do not last long in the wild. it's simply designed that way for the needs of the fly, rather than being in any kind of state of "transition". This is what I mean by indoctrination. Half a wing, is an attempt so say their wings are not fully formed/half finished, how do you know this? THere are wings of all different shapes/sizes and designs, perfectly suited to the animals needs. Once again, we have a variant of insect/animal deliberately misinterpretated and put across as a case for evolution.



They do not have half a wing. They are fully functioning as they are, without any sign of a halfway evolved structure, as you are attempting to make out here, which is what evolutionists have to do. Flying squirrels have a blanket skin stretched between their front and hind legs. As flying squirrels leap out of a treetop and spread out their four limbs, they look like Aladdin's magic carpet, gliding gracefully across the nighttime sky. Miraculously, flying squirrels are able to maneuver in mid-air and steer toward their desired destinations. And you want to compare this with......"half a wing" congrats on pulling out all stops, this makes your arguments even more questionable and desperate.

A gliding stage is not intermediate between a land animal and a flier. Gliders either have even longer wings than fliers (compare a glider's wingspan with an airplane's, or the wingspan of birds like the albatross which spend much time gliding), or have a wide membrane which is quite different from a wing (note the shape of a hang-glider or a flying squirrel). Flapping flight also requires highly controlled muscle movements to achieve flight, which in turn requires that the brain has the program for these movements. Ultimately, this requires new genetic information that a non-flying creature lacks.



Or, the chicken could simply be designed just as it is as another variety of farm bird. Here again we have a theory attempting to be put across as fact. Chickens do quite nicely as they are and can indeed fly when they require it, but they are barnyard birds, suited for the farm, rather than the tree tops.

The wings have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the ribcage during falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (emus will run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If the wings are useless, why are the muscles functional, allowing these birds to move their wings?



Penguins "wings" are more aptly described as flippers designed exactly for swimming (flying through water in a sense). I cannot honesty see your points here in respect to this ludicrous claim of dinosaur to bird evolution. Talk about pulling out all stops. Any winged flightless birds are not evidence for dinosaur to bird evolution Linda. And no amount of flapping and 'winging it" will make that transition realistic or even possible/probable

DID BIRDS REALLY EVOLVE INTO DINOSAURS OR ANYTHING ELSE?, CHECK OUT THIS LINK ALSO:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinobird.html



Also known as the North Dakota Column, this is claimed to contain the entire geologic column. The total theoretical column depth is 100 miles, but the depth of the Williston Basin is only 3.4 miles. This means that much of the column is missing. Such large amounts of sedimentation are possible during a year-long global Flood, because it was laid down sideways making it quite possible to lay down such large amounts of sediment very quickly, the main factors being available sediment and the rate of current flow.

Now it does have rocks labeled as all ten ages, but some interesting data can be found in, The Geological Atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.. The Williston Basin is part of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.

Here is how they labeled some these strata:

Hay River Embayment (van Hees, 1964) - a depositional area northwest of the Peace-Athabasca Arch, developed on the Interior Platform, containing remnants of rocks that have been interpreted as being equivalent to Lower and Middle Cambrian units of central Alberta. The rocks have not been dated, and some of the strata may be younger than here interpreted. The embayment extends westward into the mountains of northeastern British Columbia. This indicates that when lacking fossils, they find rocks that they can interpret as equivalent to the rocks they are dating, so as to set a geologic age. Biostratigraphy according to Williston Basin, "biostratigraphy based on pollen and spores has been used to determine the age of the coal beds." [7] Other fossils include shells and fish but many layers have few if any fossils. In general these layers have not been dated by fossils. Furthermore, there is little reference to radiometric dates beyond the pre-Cambrian. The one set that is mentioned produced inconsistent results.

Local lithostratigraphy and sedimentology are generally well known. However, the paucity of reliable radiometric dates and the absence of biostratigraphic control has hindered correlation within and between the assemblages and precluded accurate dating of each assemblage.
There are several other cases where poor or no biostratigraphic data is mentioned, as well as no reference to radiometric dates. As a result it seems that many of these strata were assigned geologic ages based on comparing rocks. Then the comparisons were interpreted based on the geological column. They seem to be assuming that because of the geologic column, the gaps must contain ages for which they have no fossils

The conclusion that they have a complete geologic column in this area is based on the assumption of the existence of the geologic column. This is circular reasoning.

If that is not enough there is a place where a rock layer labeled Devonian can be found between rock layers labeled Carboniferous. Devonian is alleged to be older than Carboniferous, but this would suggest that they are really the same age.

Curiously while the theoretical column thickness is 100 miles, the maximum thickness of sediment found any place is only 16 miles. That means that at any given location at least 84% of the geologic column is missing.

Morton's claim - "A detailed examination of the young earth creationist claim that the geologic column does not exist. It is shown that the entire geologic column exists in North Dakota.’[5]
Is it misleading? http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp



LOL, vice versa, you provide arguments that agree with your own bias, so you really need to quit accusing people of what you are doing constantly on here. Nobody ever sees any solid evidence. There should be, you're claiming it's science, where are the visuals evidences? No cartoons please.

In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.

Steve Austin, PhD geology, and member of the RATE team, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.3 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.4 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.

Radiometric Dating uses the following three primary assumptions in determining age:

Assumption One: The radioisotope decay rates have been constant throughout the past. As I previously mentioned, we know that some elements decay over time into another element, i.e., uranium (parent) changes into lead (daughter). Since these decay rates are now very stable, this has seemed to be a reasonable assumption. However, there are several clues that past rates have changed, or that some other process dominated.

For example, the existence of short, half-life polonium halos in rock are evidence of rapid formation of host rocks. Even evolutionists admit that the halos are a mystery. Yet nearby a full uranium halo might be found which would take a long period of time to form. These two "mutually-exclusive" facts convince one that something has been overlooked.

Assumption Two: No parent or daughter material has been added to or taken from the specimen. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwater’s otherwise the dating will absolutely be useless. It is very difficult for one to argue the system has never been contaminated through ground water leaching.
Furthermore, since the dynamic Flood of Noah's day covered the entire globe, what rock could have escaped its effects?

Assumption Three :No daughter material was present at the start. Only rocks and minerals, which formerly were in a hot molten condition (like lava), can be dated. But what if the original melt already had some radiogenic lead? The resulting rock would inherit a deceivingly "old" date. In recent years, the "isochron" method has been derived to differentiate between inherited material and true daughter material. Unfortunately, even this has now come into disfavor. Many "pseudo-isochrons" have now been published which yield bizarre, useless dates.

This assumption actually denies the possibility of creation, for God may have created an array of radioisotopes, which, if analyzed with false assumptions, could be misinterpreted as age.

The problem with all of this, of course, is that if your original assumption is flawed then the dates you get mean absolutely nothing. As there is with so much about the theory of evolution, there is circular reasoning involved in radiometric dating as it uses the geologic column to verify it's age.