Bex, many of the things you mentioned in your post have been explained to you. What you appear to be choosing to do is say, "I don't believe it." That is of course your choice, but it doesn't say much for "creation science", nor does it lend that particular ideology any credibility
The so-called explanations you've all given have failed miserably to give any evidence that simplicity has become complexity, even in all the vast periods of time you guys give on our history. You continue to state that evolution occured in total defiance of the fossil pictures provided and now stating - just because they look no different, doesn't mean they weren't. Or if there are changes (variation that we still observe today) means they were "less evolved", rather than just another species. Im sure everybody expected these kinds of excuses and in fact, I was already predicting them and had to laugh as they all popped out one by one <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Another species is not evidence for evolution, variation isn't evidence for evolution. And little to no signs of change in those pictures- does not mean they were evolving anyway. Even a child can see those fossil pictures and easily pick out what creatures they are. Even the insects and plants are much the same. They too defy any significant changes, but the evolutionist continues to claim and stamp BUT IT HAPPENED ANYWAY <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/taz.gif" alt="" />. The amazing convenience of the slyness of evolution and how it skips, hides, and does all manner of things that somehow escapes detection and observation and they still expect us to believe it happened. Open up people and swallow your indoctrination medicine. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yourmedicine.gif" alt="" />
You've been told how a simple genetic mutation can cause a chicken to grow feathers where it had scales. It's been explained to you that therapod dinosaurs had hollow bones. It's been explained that evolution can occur at different rates, depending on how the environment itself changes and how well the species can adapt. You've been given information about how some of those very "living fossils" are not, in fact, the same as those that existed millions of years ago; some have undergone significant changes, even though to the casual observer they look the same.
Yes, I've been TOLD lots and lots of things! But given zero evidence of simplistic life becoming complex. And this has to be one of the funniest yet!
Now you're trying to pass off lab experiment with a bird and it's feathers as an example of dinosaur to bird evolution. This is about as insulting to anybody's intelligence as it can possibly get and barely deserves the dignity of an answer. Genetic interference/manipulation from scientists in a lab to get the feathers of a bird to grow out of the featherless bare skin on its feet/legs and you guys think this is evidence that the bird evolved from from dinosaurs (or reptilian-like scales evolved or can evolve into feathers) and that's your idea of science? The transference/messing around of information for bird feathers to grow out of bird feet in an animal that already has the genetic information for feathers is NOT evidence for dinosaur to bird evolution! This study, even if it is true, does not show reptilian scales turning INTO feathers Linda. This is meddling with already existing genes for feathers to GROW OUT OF the bare scaly skin on the feet. Do you guys not understand the difference? They have NOT shown reptilian/dinosaur scales becoming feathers. Let me explain something simple to you Linda -
Growing out of something, is not
one thing changing into something else. Skin doesn't become the hair or fur itself, no matter how hairy or furry... but hair/fur grows out of it (note the difference). Nor does chicken skin become the feathers. Yet, you want us to believe that scales (scaled skin) can. Wow! What an imagination.
If they have achieved this transference of feathers to the feet experiment, then it's quite on the cards they could do a similar experiement with us and perhaps have hair grow out of an area where it's normally bare (soles of the feet? Palms of the hands?). If apes had hair from their soles and palms, trust me Linda, they'd have done a similar experiement on us (transferring hair to hairless areas) and then passed that off as further evidence for ape to man evolution. And even then it's only transfer of information or a messing around with existing information. It is not added information/complexity.
First of all, I'm interested in seeing this study of the bird that Linear has suggested with the pictures to back up the fact it was done. Just from curiosity sake, so I can witness the results of this interesting feat? (;) excuse the pun). I wonder if they transferred this genetic information for feathers to a person, whether this would validate Big Bird as an earlier ancestor of us <img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/lsmbveuapr.jpg"> what's behind the feathers <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> . Reminds me of those fossils in a way, they too are donning costumes to imitate something they're not. Because underneath? They're significantly different.... You want jokes Linda? Because this is exactly what this is. Tell me, did the experiement on the bird make it any less a bird/chicken? Was new information added? Or did they just mess around with the information already there? Have they managed to turn the bird back into into it's reptilian/dinosaur ancestor? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I'd love to see that happen. Have they done an experiement on present day reptiles to see if they can stir it's scales into becoming feathers?
Deliberate meddling with already existing genetics in a science lab to perform this experiement STILL had to come from outside creative intellect and interference, yet you guys do not even see the irony of this and don't want to. Even this messing around with already available information took deliberate creative interference..... what must it have taken to achieve the rest of what we see in the universe/earth/creation? which goes beyond any 'creative" meddling/interference than man can achieve in a lab..... this experiment does not even prove reptile to bird, let alone proving that it could achieve such a feat all by itself from nature and time alone. There is no more evidence for scale to feather / dinosaur to bird evolution than there is for any other similar assumptions made on the evolution of all creatures and the supposed transitional forms.
Here is an ancient feather by the way:
http://fossil-museum.com/fossils/fosil.php?Id=19412 Millions years old with much detail:
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/hnvvjhzftd.jpg">
Feathers are SIGNIFICANTLY different from reptilian scales and all kinds of skin. They are more similar to hair (but even more complex). Use your brains! Whether hair, nails, feathers etc, they grow OUT OF the skin. They are not skin or scales and never were. Nor is there any sign of scales evolving into feathers to this day.
Feathers:
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/juvlwpvveo.jpg">
Scales:
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/xnhrjzcamr.jpg">
And this is Linda teaching us science? Wow, us un-enlightened peasants! CTD, Russ and Sosick, I hope you're taking note of her lessons! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
The past ancient fossils pictures that show that birds always existed as birds and even around a similar time period as Archaeopteryx, who also had a complete set of feathers! If modern day birds are descended from dinosaurs, how did birds exist all those millions of years ago around the sametime as their supposed "missing link"? This to my mind is the kind of dangerous stupidity that defies belief. I think the word is "dumb on purpose". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/looney.gif" alt="" />
Here is a picture of Archaeopteryx: (apparently around 150 million years old according to evolution):
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/jwttkxcqxa.jpg">
Ancient bird, barely changed from modern day birds 140 million years old:
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/njfrxqibrx.jpg">
I've never seen the evidence in nature that dinosaurs evolved into birds, I've not seen the evidence in fossils, as we've seen have not shown this, yet an imagined scenario of such is expected to be accepted as a fact. Or a different species will be fitted into the mould they give it. I'm not so easily convinced as you are and it looks like evolution could feed you anything and you'd swallow it and this is a prime example of it, which casts doubt on everything else that you are proposing. If you can fall for this? You'll fall for anything and it looks like you'll do so willingly.
I provided you with photographic proof of the past showing fossilised ancient birds show the same characteristics as modern day birds, yet this too is "explained away" or "side stepped" as somehow being a case of.....appearances are deceiving. Well they must be Linda, because the fossils are obviously lying and fooling us all. Since those changes are significant, yet show little to no external evidence of change. What a miracle! Imagine having millions of years worth of small changes from then to now, yet giving no outside external evidence that anything has really changed. I've seen enough people change in just a few years from growing/ageing alone, yet somehow millions of years of evolution has barely shown a thing! Nothing more than what we see today. Even an extinct creature or one we have not observed today is still very much what it is - fully formed, giving no sign at all of simple life becoming more complex. Whether the same species or not.
I've presented you with a chart showing where in the fossil record different hominid fossils have been found. I gave you evidence about how homo erectus was dated. I'll present you with the same question that I presented CTD with: would you like to explain how dating rocks by looking at fluctuations they record in the earth's magnetic field, or via electron spin resonance, is speculation, wishful thinking, and erroneous? Or is it just easier to ignore it all and claim it's a pack of lies?
Yes, you presented me with a "chart", and because of this chart, with all your "accurate" dating methods, this means that the proposal of ape-like creature to modern day man happened. I don't know enough about dating methods Linda, so you're asking the wrong person. But I certain do not accept everything an evolutionist suggests or has studied, there are also creation scientists who have studied too and oppose the dating methods.
Whatever the case, either way, it does not prove that any ape-like creature, or any creature at all dug up as an earlier transitional form of us or anything else. That is speculation Linda on the unseen past. Yes you can speculate or you want, but it does not make it factual because you wish it were so.
So you're telling me that we can't be sure of anything if we "weren't there"? I wonder why creationists are OK with sentencing someone to the death penalty in Florida even when there are no eye witnesses in the case? After all, they "weren't there." LinearAQ asked you some other questions about what we presumably can't know because we "weren't there." Do you really believe that we can learn nothing about what happened in the past, through clues from the present? I suspect this belief is applied very selectively, especially where archaeology is concerned.
I gather you believe in innocent until proven guilty Linda? In the past, before modern day technology, there were possibly a great many more of the innocently convicted before they were able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the person did the crime (e.g. without the DNA evidence) or many more crimes unsolved and it still occurs in our day and age. Of course it helps that every human being has their own unique finger prints doesn't it? Ever considered that one? And you want to compare this scenario with alot of evolutionary assumptions from the past by modern day people who were were not there to witness it and don't seem to have enough evidence to prove that one kind of animal became another (or the ape to man senario) or dinosaur to bird senario. Psst, even the fossils themselves in the pictures aren't letting on either <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
The only thing evolutionists CAN witness is what they dig up in the present (after the fact) and from there, they see everything through the eyes of evolution, because they have already assumed that everything evolved from simplicity to complexity. What can you do with people working already from an evolution belief? It's like me working on a crime and convincing myself of someone's guilt, even without sufficient evidence. Simply because I'm already working with that idea set in my mind. I wonder how often this is done!
I find the requests in your post quite interesting. Let's SEE a fossil evolving, you say. You want me to provide you a picture of the entire fossil record complete with every layer of rock that's ever been discovered in the geologic column, along with every fossil, apparently. This information is all over the internet and in most scientific textbooks. You could go out fossil-hunting yourself in many areas of the world. Would any of it convince you? Not as long as you can sit there and brush it away as being a pack of lies. The link I gave you to hominid evolution does actually explain that the given dates match up with where those fossils were found in the geologic column, and it explained how exactly homo erectus was dated. Your comments amount to claiming that this is simply a lie, in which case as I said, please explain how the scientific dating methods used were wrong.
Linda, even if the dating methods are correct, I am trying very hard to get through to you, that we do not know if one kind evolved into another. To dig up a fossil and find certain characteristics, does not mean this is an earlier transitional form. E.g. Imagine if modern day cats (the domesticated kind) had died out before we had a chance to observe them existing at the sametime as the big cats (bob cats, cheetas, etc). Now try and imagine finding some fossils of these cats and seeing the characteristics clearly showing it's of the cat family. Do you suppose that the evolutionist just might assume that this is an earlier transitional form? Given what they assume about us humans and everything else, I think the scenario is not just possible, it is probable. In fact, whatever cat-like creature they would dig up, they would no doubt assume the same, rather than consider "could it be another species of cat"???? Or could it be simply another species?
See this idea does not even enter their minds, because they are already convinced evolution happened, they fit everything into that scenario. Then they preach it as fact and people like you accept it willingly. I think you accept anything fed to you by an evolutionary spoon and spit out anything that smacks of design/abrupt appearance or living things. Yet you want people to believe on here that you're hunting for facts and even trying to teach us some science in the process.....<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/imnotworthy.gif" alt="" />.
I'm desperately debating, am I? I'm just having an interesting time trying to teach some science and maybe trying to understand why people are so keen not to understand it. If a person feels desperate about their own position, that's where you can start looking for things like ad hominem insults or blanket denials of everything when they can't think of anything else to say and have no more evidence to provide for their position
Even if you were qualilied to teach science, I would hate to have been taught by someone like you at a young age before I learned to question this theory. Ouch! I'm glad you teach english and not science. One really needs to use their brain independently enough to question (for example) ape to man scenarios, because not doing that would leave one a sitting duck for indoctrination and unable to view the evidence from any other viewpoint other than evolution. Isn't this what evolution already does? Teach it from the evolutionary viewpoint before the person can question evolution itself!
