The Last Homely House
General => Council of Cobra => Topic started by: Gate Troll on February 16, 2009, 01:38:30 PM
-
What do you think? :P
-
Come on people, God created dinosaurs and all animals to reproduce after their own kind.
-
Sure, birds developed of dinosaurs. That does not mean, that animals, created by God, do not reproduce with their own kind. Just look at archeopterix... :uh-huh:
-
In 1996, newspapers reported a find in China of a reptile fossil that supposedly had feathers. Some of the media reports claimed that, if it were confirmed, it would be “irrefutable evidence that today’s birds evolved from dinosaurs.” One scientist stated, “You can’t come to any conclusion other than that they’re feathers.” However, in 1997 the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia sent four leading scientists to investigate this find. They concluded that they were not feathers. The media report stated, concerning one of the scientists, “He said he saw ‘hair-like’ structures—not hairs—that could have supported a frill, or crest, like those on iguanas.”
No sooner had this report appeared than another media report claimed that 20 fragments of bones of a reptile found in South America showed that dinosaurs were related to birds.
Birds are warm-blooded and reptiles are cold-blooded, but evolutionists who believe dinosaurs evolved into birds would like to see dinosaurs as warm-blooded to support their theory. But Dr. Larry Martin, of the University of Kansas, opposes this idea:
Recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones was “characteristic of cold-blooded animals,” Martin said. “So we’re back to cold-blooded dinosaurs.”
Several more recent reports have fueled the bird/dinosaur debate among evolutionists. One concerns research on the embryonic origins of the “fingers” of birds and dinosaurs, showing that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs. A study of the so-called feathered dinosaur from China revealed that the dinosaur had a distinctively reptilian lung and diaphragm, which is distinctly different from the avian lung. Another report said that the frayed edges that some thought to be “feathers” on the Chinese fossil are similar to the collagen fibers found immediately beneath the skin of sea snakes.
There is no credible evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Dinosaurs have always been dinosaurs and birds have always been birds.
What if a dinosaur fossil was found with feathers on it? Would that prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs? No, a duck has a duck bill and webbed feet, as does a platypus, but nobody believes that this proves that platypuses evolved from ducks. The belief that reptiles or dinosarus evolved into birds requires reptilian scales on the way to becoming feathers, that is, transitional scales, not fully formed feathers.
-
i don't understand the question - what is it good for?
please don't open new topics all the day and using spamming [to get more posts] - rather get a "real life" young boy(s). ;)
edit: thank's @ lurtzy - but such topics are still useless :P
-
Posts in the Council of Cobra do not count towards your overall post count.
-
i don't understand the question - what is it good for?
please don't open new topics all the day and using spamming [to get more posts] - rather get a "real life" young boy(s). ;)
edit: thank's @ lurtzy - but such topics are still useless :P
What a wonderful bouquet of red herrings and spam. What you have said is not the point. This is a valid argument, please don't try to discredit it by bringing a non-related factor (our ages) into the discussion. If you wish to discuss, disagree, or argue logically with us, by all means, do. If you wish to spam, and propagate red herrings I would request that you do it elsewhere. Thank you.
-
Archaeopytrex was just a bird with claws. The only reason evolutionists believe it is a transitional fossil is because they are desprate. I just went over that fossil in biology.
-
I thought this topic was about girls... nevermind
A British thing
-
I thought it was about the alfred hitchcock movie, which frankly, I think, would make for more interesting discussion.
-
I thought this topic was about girls... nevermind
A British thing
LOL @ Jordy. Mate, thats exactly what i thought before i even opened the post but i suspected probably otherwise!
Hehehe.
-
In 1996, newspapers reported a find in China of a reptile fossil that supposedly had feathers. Some of the media reports claimed that, if it were confirmed, it would be “irrefutable evidence that today’s birds evolved from dinosaurs.” One scientist stated, “You can’t come to any conclusion other than that they’re feathers.” However, in 1997 the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia sent four leading scientists to investigate this find. They concluded that they were not feathers. The media report stated, concerning one of the scientists, “He said he saw ‘hair-
like’ structures—not hairs—that could have supported a frill, or crest, like those on iguanas.”
This is a joke, right?? ....I do not think that this has something to do with serious science....just grab a biology book mate
No sooner had this report appeared than another media report claimed that 20 fragments of bones of a reptile found in South America showed that dinosaurs were related to birds.
Birds are warm-blooded and reptiles are cold-blooded, but evolutionists who believe dinosaurs evolved into birds would like to see dinosaurs as warm-blooded to support their theory. But Dr. Larry Martin, of the University of Kansas, opposes this idea:
Recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones was “characteristic of cold-blooded animals,” Martin said. “So we’re back to cold-blooded dinosaurs.”
Several more recent reports have fueled the bird/dinosaur debate among evolutionists. One concerns research on the embryonic origins of the “fingers” of birds and dinosaurs, showing that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs. A study of the so-called feathered dinosaur from China revealed that the dinosaur had a distinctively reptilian lung and diaphragm, which is distinctly different from the avian lung. Another report said that the frayed edges that some thought to be “feathers” on the Chinese fossil are similar to the collagen fibers found immediately beneath the skin of sea snakes.
There is no credible evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Dinosaurs have always been dinosaurs and birds have always been birds.
What if a dinosaur fossil was found with feathers on it? Would that prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs? No, a duck has a duck bill and webbed feet, as does a platypus, but nobody believes that this proves that platypuses evolved from ducks. The belief that reptiles or dinosarus evolved into birds requires reptilian scales on the way to becoming feathers, that is, transitional scales, not fully formed feathers.
-
you are joking, this can't be serious?? ....just grab a biology book. this has nothin' to do with real science
-
Classy.
-
I thought this topic was about girls... nevermind
A British thing
LOL @ Jordy. Mate, thats exactly what i thought before i even opened the post but i suspected probably otherwise!
Hehehe.
we call girls "chicks" here in the states. not "birds". just chicks. and a thread titled "Birds and Chicks" would be a heck of a lot more interesting than this one...
-
or maybe alfred hitchcocks birds attacking chicks...that would be even more interesting.
-
Or Hitch's birds attacking girls bearing replicas of Archaeopteryx.
-
Or Hitch's birds attacking girls bearing replicas of Archaeopteryx.
:mrgreen: brilliant! *rofl*
-
you mean rolf I presume ;)
or even better, girls dressed up as Archaeopteryx
-
Oh dear, it appears we have gone way off topic...
-
you mean rolf I presume ;)
or even better, girls dressed up as Archaeopteryx
in germany we say "Rolling On the Floor and Laughing" ;)
-
we say rolling on laughing floor here ;)
-
I have to agree that Archeoptyrx is just one of those "strange" animals, whether bird, reptile or mammal, of which I don't think really matters. There are many many strange types of animals that don't "fit" into a generic category, and furthermore have absolutely no intermediate fossils linking it to other more "common" types of animals.
Evolution is NOT science. It only uses science in a crafty attempt to explain away or to give an excuse that something didn't happen, namely, Intelligent Design.
-
Evolution is NOT science. It only uses science in a crafty attempt to explain away or to give an excuse that something didn't happen, namely, Intelligent Design.
You are right, Evolution is, like the big bang, just a theory... But there is no reason to not believe in Evolution...
-
Tossing this out there: When you get right down to it, what in science can ever be proven beyond any possibility of doubt? Science is not like math, where you can sit down with a pencil and paper and work out a proof. Theories are formed using data taken from the real world. For all we know, every measurement we have ever taken might have been influenced by some phenomenon that we don't even realize exists. To discard something because it is "just a theory" is, I think, to trivialize what scientists even mean by the term.