Mr Olaadegun,

I wish you stick to your E-fellowship thread, where you are more useful instead of dabbling into areas you have no clue about, you think you can get bye just copying and pasting.

Your below statement is very wrong;

The fact is that dinosaurs are reptiles.  The major differences between birds and reptiles include the fact that living  reptiles are mostly cold - blooded creatures, while birds and mammals are warm-blooded.  

Who is providing the[b] fact[/b] you are talking about.  Dinosaurs were initially assumed to be Large Reptiles (Lizards) because of the shapes of their bones as found in the 18th century. But today most paleontologists has stated that dinosaurs are a different class of animals more related to birds than even reptiles.

In plain english, it means dinosaurs are not birds and definitely not reptiles, but more closely related to birds. Is that too difficult to understand?

Sometimes read statements you copy and paste, you clearly stated that reptiles are mostly cold - blooded creatures, so where is the argument. It shows that not all reptiles are cold blooded.

Also not all dinosaurs are exothermic, some were endothermic. In fact being cold blooded or warm blooded was not the feature that separated dinosaurs from other classes.

noetic2:

u did not answer my questions. . . .

why cant evolution end?
and when and how did evolution start?

Evolution cannot end because physical conditions such as climate, altitude and water on earth is not static and is not the same the world over. So evolution must continue to make sure that organism adapt to their peculiar environment.

Biological Evolution started the day a DNA stand was formed and started replicating itself.

wirinet:

Evolution cannot end because physical conditions such as climate, altitude and water on earth is not static and is not the same the world over. So evolution must continue to make sure that organism adapt to their peculiar environment.

From the above, it is safe to assume two things.
a. you witnessed the very first process of evolution. do u mind describing it? and also defining the chemical compositions.
b. you have recently seen an organism evolve. what organism has evolved during ur life time, with repeatable and verifiable evidences?

Biological Evolution started the day a DNA stand was formed and started replicating itself.

how was this DNA stand formed?

noetic2:

From the above, it is safe to assume two things.
a. you witnessed the very first process of evolution. do u mind describing it? and also defining the chemical compositions.
b. you have recently seen an organism evolve. what organism has evolved during ur life time, with repeatable and verifiable evidences?

how was this DNA stand formed?

It is not possible for anyone to physically witness the first process of evolution, because it happened billions of years ago, before even the first single celled organism was formed, and most important of all, the conditions necessary to trigger the process is not longer available.

Yes organisms evolve during my life time, but most of them are not noticeable because of the very short life span of humans compared to the time span needed to see visible changes, which is sometimes tens of thousands of years.
Although it is possible to see evolution taking place in simple small short lived plants and insects and also simple unicellular  plants and animals.

The first DNA strand was formed by first the formation of simple amino acids from simple inorganic compounds in the atmosphere of the young earth, the amino acid underwent polymerization to form nucleic acids, one of the nucleic acid is DioxyboNucleic Acid (DNA), which is capable of self replication. Other nucleic acid polymerized to form proteins.

I just simplified the process to give you a general idea, the actual chemical process is very complex.

wirinet:


It is not possible for anyone to physically witness the first process of evolution, because it happened billions of years ago, before even the first single celled organism was formed, and most important of all, the conditions necessary to trigger the process is not longer available.

a. If physical observation is impossible. . . what form of observation suggests that the first evolution process EVER took place?

b. what were the substances involved in this first evolution that took place?

c. Since according to you, the first evolution process took place before the first single celled organism was formed. . . .how could non-living substances produce these pioneer organisms? how could non-living substances produce life (organisms)?

Yes organisms evolve during my life time, but most of them are not noticeable because of the very short life span of humans compared to the time span needed to see visible changes, which is sometimes tens of thousands of years.
Although it is possible to see evolution taking place in simple small short lived plants and insects and also simple unicellular  plants and animals.

a. by "not noticeable", do u mean invisible and unseen and unknown processes?

b. where are the repeatable and verifiable scientific evidences that suggest that short lived plants and insects including plants and animals evolve?

The first DNA strand was formed by first the formation of simple amino acids from simple inorganic compounds in the atmosphere of the young earth, the amino acid underwent polymerization to form nucleic acids, one of the nucleic acid is DioxyboNucleic Acid (DNA), which is capable of self replication. Other nucleic acid polymerized to form proteins.

I just simplified the process to give you a general idea, the actual chemical process is very complex.

a. How was the simple amino acids formed?

Krayola2:

I really don't know much about this stuff so i just want to understand what u're getting at.

u seem to be saying that because most reptiles are cold blooded, all dinosaurs were. Not sure, but thats what it seems like. Not sure how that adds up

Are all reptiles cold blooded or just most of them?

Neither am I an expert on evolution which is not real science but a belief system which cannot be proved. I have to stand on the shoulders of true scientists such as biblical creationists and at times, sincere evolutionists who are experts in certain fields, like in the case on bird evolution. But basically, my foundation is the solid Word of God.

What I meant was that dinosaurs are reptiles and that they are all cold blooded except for a precious few.

OLAADEGBU:

Well, first, birds are also reptiles, or to be more specific, belong in the same class as dinosaurs: reptilia.  

You are entitled to your own dogma or opinion.  Remember that we are observing the same evidence but our different starting points make us interprete or explain it differently.  Anyone observing objectively would realise the fact that birds are warm blooded creatures and that reptiles, such as dinosaurs, are cold blooded animals.  That alone should tell you that they belong to different classifications.  Birds have exceptionally high body temperatures resulting from their high metabolic rate.  Their differences is not simply in the relative temperature of the blood core temperature but rather in their abililty to maintain a constant body temperature.  This is why birds and mammals have internal physiological mechanisms to maintain an essentially constant body temperature and this is why they are more properly called "endothermic."  In contrast, reptiles such as the dinosaurs have a varying body temperature influenced by their surrounding environment and are called "ectothermic."  An ectothermic animal can adjust its body temperature such as moving between shade and sun, it can even achieve higher body temperature than a so called warm blooded animal, but this can only be done by external factors.

Firstly, that birds belong in the reptilia class is netheir opinion nor dogma, but a taxonomic classification. You'll also notice that I mentioned earlier that the evidence suggests that several dinosaurs were endothermic and some early birds may have been exothermic.

Second, I know what endothermic means. It doesn't change the fact, though, that findings have led us to realise that species of dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Okay?

Finally, here's a question: why do you think all dinosaurs were exothermic? And does that apply to the likes of archeopteryx and other transitionals?

Now to the claim that dinosaurs were exothermic, the evidence actually suggests otherwise. While some dinosaurs were no doubt exothermic, several were endothermic. For example, the Sinosauropteryx prima had feathers and the suggestions of hairs used for insulation. Moreover, its physical characteristics also imply its endothermic nature. It's interesting to note, also, that some early "birds" may have been exothermic

I know that evolutionists such as yourself are trying to make the evolution of dinosaurs into birds seem more plausible, hence your argument that dinosaurs are endothermic, but there is no clear evidence for this.  Your example of Sinosauropteryx is unfounded.  This Sinosauropteryx is very unbird-like and it lacks any evidence of structures that could be shown to be feather-like.  What you claim to be "protofeathers" in the Sinosauropteryx in the dinosaur fossils are simply filamentous and sometimes have interlaced structures bearing no obvious resemblance to feathers.  They actually appear likely to be connective tissue fibers found in the deep layer of the skin.  And for your information, true birds have been found among the fossils of the Sinosauropteryx in the same layers as their presumed dinosaur ancestors. 

Nonsense. There's plenty of evidence that several species of dinosaurs were endothermic, from their feeding and lifestyle modes to physical traits like feathers for insulation.

Further, of course the Sinosauropteryx prima is "unbird-like". It wasn't some kind of proto-bird. It was a dinosaur with feathers. Also, that the feathers of the Sinosauropteryx prima was hollow belies any argument that it wasn't feathers.

Finally, yeah, birds and dinosaur-birds transitionals - for example, the archeopteryx - have been found in layers that even precede the Sinosauropteryx prima, but um, no one has said Sinosauropteryx is the ancestor of modern birds or proto-birds.

Finally, it isn't other scientists that try to make the evidence conform when it doesn't, it's Feduccia that does that. Since digging in his heels about what the lineage of bird evolution should be, Feduccia has consistently ignored all emerging findings and evidence.

This is what Feduccia, a bird expert and evolutionist who is sincere, says: "the major and most worrying problem of the feathered dinosaurs hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information."

Wait, why is Feduccia sincere? Because you wish he is? The fact remains that Feduccia has constantly ignored new findings and any evidence that show he is wrong about the view of bird evolution he has had for decades. Feduccia, despite the fact he accepts the theory of evolution, has ironically become the darling of Creationists because he practices the same thing they do: ignore reality and all evidence.

So, um, wanna try again on the differences between dinosaurs and birds?

Why don't you explain to me the mechanism to change scales into feathers, mechanism to change a reptilian lung into an avian lung?  The fact that there are no legitimate dinosaurs found with feathers are all good indications that dinosaurs didn't turn into birds.  The evidence is still consistent with what the Bible teaches about birds being unique and created after their kinds.

Nice ducking of the question, dude. I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Deal? Um, no "legitimate dinosaurs with feathers? What about the sinosauropteryx? Or, what, you think it's a bird now? Or the Caudipteryx zoui? Yeah, can't wait for the express dodge.

Lest I forget, does the Bible tell us the "kind" of dinosaur-bird transitionals?

It is you and your bedfellows that have the onus to prove to us that dinosaurs evolved into birds.  What the Bible says is that birds where created on day 5 and dinosaurs on day 6.  Genesis 1:21 says that God created every winged bird after its "kind."  The following verse says they were to multiply or reproduce.  The logical connection is that birds of the same kind can reproduce.  The Hebrew word for "kind" in Genesis refers to any group of animals capable of interbreeding and reproducing according to their type.  For example, all dogs and dog-like animals, such as wolves and coyotes, are capable of interbreeding and thus would represent one "kind," even though some are classified today as different species.

This does not mean that all birds represent a single created kind and thus share a common ancestry.  The Bible tells us that there are many different bird kinds.  For example, the Levitical dietary laws (Lev.11:13-19), lists many different bird kinds as being unclean.  This gives further biblical support for multiple created bird kinds.

So, say an animal like the archeopteryx with traditionally dinosaurian traits like: Lacking a bill; socketed teeth; Nostrils on the snout ; Unfused vertebrae of the trunk, etc. are we to assume that it is. . . which kind?

Second, if the defintion of a kind is their ability to interbreed and reproduce, then that would make a donkey and a horse are the same kind.  However, the thing is, the genetic distance between a donkey and a horse are comparable to that between humans and chimps - probably even more. That would, then, logically, make humans and chimps the same kind. Hmm. . .

Finally, I take it there is no scientifc value to the Bible's classification of bird "kind", yes?

wirinet:

Mr Olaadegun,

I wish you stick to your E-fellowship thread, where you are more useful instead of dabbling into areas you have no clue about, you think you can get bye just copying and pasting.

  Here you go again with your bluffings, ad Hominens and ridicule to ease your ego.  Even if I copy and paste why didn't you address the issues at hand before attacking me?

wirinet:

Your below statement is very wrong;
Who is providing the[b] fact[/b] you are talking about.  Dinosaurs were initially assumed to be Large Reptiles (Lizards) because of the shapes of their bones as found in the 18th century. But today most paleontologists has stated that dinosaurs are a different class of animals more related to birds than even reptiles.

In plain english, it means dinosaurs are not birds and definitely not reptiles, but more closely related to birds. Is that too difficult to understand?

Sometimes read statements you copy and paste, you clearly stated that reptiles are mostly cold - blooded creatures, so where is the argument. It shows that not all reptiles are cold blooded.

Also not all dinosaurs are exothermic, some were endothermic. In fact being cold blooded or warm blooded was not the feature that separated dinosaurs from other classes.

This again says so much about the so called evolutionary theory where the goalpost can be moved to suit their argument.  The fact that they cannot make up their minds as to whether the dinosaur is extinct or not is an example here.

Many evolutionists do not really think dinosaurs evolved into birds, for instance, in 1997, at the entrance to a bird exhibition at a zoo in Cincinnati, Ohio, it displays a sign stating the following words:

"Dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago--- or did they?  No, birds are essentially modern short-tailed feathered dinosaurs."

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 the theory of Birdosaurs, whatever that means.  I will give a few quotes of evolutionists who disagree with your theory below:

Dr. Larry Martins, of the univ. of Kansas, "Recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones was characteristic of cold-blooded animals, so we are back to cold-blooded dinosaurs". - Stieg, Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 1997.

Another concerns research on the embryonic origins of the "fingers" of birds and dinosaurs, shows that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs.   - A. Burke and A. Feduccia, Developmental patterns and the identification of homologies in the avian hand, Science[/i]278:1229, 1997.

A study of the so called feathered dinosaur from China revealed that the dinosaur had a distinctively reptilian lung and diaphragm, which is distincly different from the avian lung. - J. Ruben et al., Lung structure and ventilation in theropod dinosaurs and early birds, [i]Science[b]278:[/b]1267-1270, 1997.

Another report said that the frayed edges that some thought to be "feathers" on the Chinese fossil are similar to the collagen fibres found immediately beneath the skin of sea snakes. - A. Gibbons, Plucking the feathered dinosaur, Science[b]278:[/b]1229,1997.

I quoted all these to say that there is no credible evidence to proof that dinosaurs evolved into birds, Dinosaurs have always been dinosaurs and birds have always been birds.  The belief that reptiles or dinosaurs evolved into birds requires reptilian scales on the way to becoming feathers, that is, transitional scales, not fully formed feathers. 

Therefore, the similarities placed in creatures shows the hand of the One true Creator God who made everything.  The book of Genesis is clear that God didn't make birds from pre-existing dinosaurs.  Dinosaurs which was a land animal was created on Day 6 and came after winged creatures made on Day 5, according to the Bible.  Both biblically and scientifically, chicken eaters globally can rest easy because they are not eating mutant dinosaurs.

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53

KAG:

Firstly, that birds belong in the reptilia class is netheir opinion nor dogma, but a taxonomic classification. You'll also notice that I mentioned earlier that the evidence suggests that several dinosaurs were endothermic and some early birds may have been exothermic.

Second, I know what endothermic means. It doesn't change the fact, though, that findings have led us to realise that species of dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Okay?

Finally, here's a question: why do you think all dinosaurs were exothermic? And does that apply to the likes of archeopteryx and other transitionals?

This is what another sincere evolutionist says about the classification of dinosaurs:

Dr. Larry Martins, of the univ. of Kansas, "Recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones was characteristic of cold-blooded animals, so we are back to cold-blooded dinosaurs". - Stieg, Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 1997.

KAG:

Nonsense. There's plenty of evidence that several species of dinosaurs were endothermic, from their feeding and lifestyle modes to physical traits like feathers for insulation.

One of the lines that you guys claim as "evidence" for endothermic dinosaurs is based on the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones.  Fossil dinosaur bones have been found containing special microscopic structures called osteons (or Haversian systems).  This arrangement is assumed by some to be unique to endothermic animals and thus evidence that dinosaurs are endothermic, but such is not the case.  Larger vertebrates (whether reptiles, birds or mammals) may also have this type of bone.  Even tuna fish have osteonal bone in their vertebral arches.  Another argument for endothermy in dinosaurs is based on the eggs and assumed brood behaviour of dinosaurs, but this speculation too has been challenged.  There is in fact no theropod brooding behaviour not known to occur in crocodiles and other cold blooded living reptiles. (see N.R. Geist and T.D. Jones, Juvenile skeletal structure and reproduction habits of dinosaurs, Science 272:712-714,1996).

KAG:

Further, of course the Sinosauropteryx prima is "unbird-like". It wasn't some kind of proto-bird. It was a dinosaur with feathers. Also, that the feathers of the Sinosauropteryx prima was hollow belies any argument that it wasn't feathers.

Finally, yeah, birds and dinosaur-birds transitionals - for example, the archeopteryx - have been found in layers that even precede the Sinosauropteryx prima, but um, no one has said Sinosauropteryx is the ancestor of modern birds or proto-birds.

The only obvious dinosaur fossil with obvious feathers that was "found" is Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.  This so called definitive feathered dinosaur was reported with much fanfare in the November 1999 issue of National Geographic but has since been shown to be a fraud as usual. 

Let me remind you of what Feduccia, a bird expert and evolutionist, said: "the major and most worrying problem of the feathered dinosaurs hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information."

KAG:

Wait, why is Feduccia sincere? Because you wish he is? The fact remains that Feduccia has constantly ignored new findings and any evidence that show he is wrong about the view of bird evolution he has had for decades. Feduccia, despite the fact he accepts the theory of evolution, has ironically become the darling of Creationists because he practices the same thing they do: ignore reality and all evidence.

If I were you I would read of the quotes of your fellow sincere evolutionists, even though they may be sincerely wrong about their worldview but they were at least sincere in their field of speciality.

Dr. Larry Martins, of the univ. of Kansas, "Recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones was characteristic of cold-blooded animals, so we are back to cold-blooded dinosaurs". - Stieg, Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 1997.

Another concerns research on the embryonic origins of the "fingers" of birds and dinosaurs, shows that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs.   - A. Burke and A. Feduccia, Developmental patterns and the identification of homologies in the avian hand, Science278:1229, 1997.

A study of the so called feathered dinosaur from China revealed that the dinosaur had a distinctively reptilian lung and diaphragm, which is distincly different from the avian lung. - J. Ruben et al., Lung structure and ventilation in theropod dinosaurs and early birds, Science278:1267-1270, 1997.

Another report said that the frayed edges that some thought to be "feathers" on the Chinese fossil are similar to the collagen fibres found immediately beneath the skin of sea snakes. - A. Gibbons, Plucking the feathered dinosaur, Science278:1229,1997.

KAG:

Nice ducking of the question, dude. I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Deal? Um, no "legitimate dinosaurs with feathers? What about the sinosauropteryx? Or, what, you think it's a bird now? Or the Caudipteryx zoui? Yeah, can't wait for the express dodge.

I did not duck your question, I answered it.  I even quoted what Feduccia lamented about when he said and I repeat for the upteenth time: "the major and most worrying problem of the feathered dinosaur hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information."  If you want to read up on it read A. Feduccia, T. Lingham-Soliar, and J.R. Hinchliffe, Do feathered dinosaurs exist?

KAG:

So, say an animal like the archeopteryx with traditionally dinosaurian traits like: Lacking a bill; socketed teeth; Nostrils on the snout ; Unfused vertebrae of the trunk, etc. are we to assume that it is. . . which kind?

Your so called Archaeoraptor liaoningensis has been found out to be a fraud, why don't you check up the National Geographic and correct the error of yours and your students that has been spread in the media, schools and publications instead of projecting a lie that has been found out.

http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaurs-vs-birds-fossils-dont-lie/

KAG:

Second, if the defintion of a kind is their ability to interbreed and reproduce, then that would make a donkey and a horse are the same kind.  However, the thing is, the genetic distance between a donkey and a horse are comparable to that between humans and chimps - probably even more. That would, then, logically, make humans and chimps the same kind. Hmm. . .

Donkeys and horses are of course of the same kind and if you think that humans and chimps are of the same kind as you have been taught why don't you try and reproduce your kind with one of them, that is, if you have not tried it before.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/zonkeys-ligers-wholphins

KAG:

Finally, I take it there is no scientifc value to the Bible's classification of bird "kind", yes?

The fact of creation and the order of creation affirm the fact that birds and dinosaurs originated separately. QED

@DAVIDDYLAN
Pls I read sth about your post somewhere and also went to your 'insurance advice' site. There is something I think you can help me do.Can we chat or sth?get me on groupcv@yahoo.com.REALLY URGENT PLS!!

OLAADEGBU:

  Here you go again with your bluffings, ad Hominens and ridicule to ease your ego.  Even if I copy and paste why didn't you address the issues at hand before attacking me?

I am not bluffing or attempting to ridicule you, but state my observations, whereby you search creationists sites and just copy and paste without having a general understanding of what is being discussed. And I think it will be unfair to accuse me of not addressing issues, i always try and explain in simple terms your questions, but most of the time you do not even try and reason my arguments, you just keep repeating what you copied from other websites like a mantra.

OLAADEGBU:

This again says so much about the so called evolutionary theory where the goalpost can be moved to suit their argument.  The fact that they cannot make up their minds as to whether the dinosaur is extinct or not is an example here.

Science is not like religion where you have to tow generally accepted dogma. Scientist make propositions based on available data, and those propositions are either modified or discarded completely with collection of new data. Also scientist are free to disagree with established theories and hypothesis and proffer their own, they only need to convince other scientists and present data that supports their new hypothesis. SO there is hardly any field of science that 100% accepted by all scientist, there are always a few renegades. That is what makes science dynamic.

OLAADEGBU:

Many evolutionists do not really think dinosaurs evolved into birds, for instance, in 1997, at the entrance to a bird exhibition at a zoo in Cincinnati, Ohio, it displays a sign stating the following words:

"Dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago--- or did they?  No, birds are essentially modern short-tailed feathered dinosaurs."

You are not exactly correct, scientists do not think that dinosaurs evolve directly into bird, they say that dinosaurs are close evolutionary relatives to modern birds, just like the chimpanzee is a close evolutionary relative of man, but chimps cannot evolved to become man, they branched off some 5 - 6 millions years ago.

Further more the quote above are gimmicks of the press to create interest. You know the way the press works, they try to sensationalize issues to create public attention.

OLAADEGBU:

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 the theory of Birdosaurs, whatever that means.  I will give a few quotes of evolutionists who disagree with your theory below:

Dr. Larry Martins, of the univ. of Kansas, "Recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones was characteristic of cold-blooded animals, so we are back to cold-blooded dinosaurs". - Stieg, Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 1997.

Another concerns research on the embryonic origins of the "fingers" of birds and dinosaurs, shows that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs.   - A. Burke and A. Feduccia, Developmental patterns and the identification of homologies in the avian hand, Science[/i]278:1229, 1997.

A study of the so called feathered dinosaur from China revealed that the dinosaur had a distinctively reptilian lung and diaphragm, which is distincly different from the avian lung. - J. Ruben et al., Lung structure and ventilation in theropod dinosaurs and early birds, [i]Science[b]278:[/b]1267-1270, 1997.

Another report said that the frayed edges that some thought to be "feathers" on the Chinese fossil are similar to the collagen fibres found immediately beneath the skin of sea snakes. - A. Gibbons, Plucking the feathered dinosaur, Science[b]278:[/b]1229,1997.

I quoted all these to say that there is no credible evidence to proof that dinosaurs evolved into birds, Dinosaurs have always been dinosaurs and birds have always been birds.  The belief that reptiles or dinosaurs evolved into birds requires reptilian scales on the way to becoming feathers, that is, transitional scales, not fully formed feathers. 

I have said it before, that dinosaurs were first thought to be Large Lizards, but after many finds of numerous bones and fossils, they discarded that idea and realized that Dinosaurs are a different class of animals on their own, and the families of that class was much larger that the families of birds we have today. Further more the classification of dinosaurs was very loose, so it was not classed on whether they are cold blooded or warm blooded, or whether they are feathered or not.

You are trying to hard to straight jacket classifications, for example not all birds have feathers, not all birds can fly and birds are not the only class of animals that can fly.

OLAADEGBU:

Therefore, the similarities placed in creatures shows the hand of the One true Creator God who made everything.  The book of Genesis is clear that God didn't make birds from pre-existing dinosaurs.  Dinosaurs which was a land animal was created on Day 6 and came after winged creatures made on Day 5, according to the Bible.  Both biblically and scientifically, chicken eaters globally can rest easy because they are not eating mutant dinosaurs.

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53

You people try to push you beliefs using absurd interpretations and linguistic gymnastics. No where in genesis did it say God created a class of animals called Birds, what it said was that " and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven". Do penguins and ostrich belong to the the "fowl class". Also how can they get to the firmament of heaven which was created on the second day. I thought firmament was space in which stars and planets were placed.


What i find irrational is the attempt by you to use a few lines of assertions like "and let there be" to give a technical explanation for the workings of everything, from biology to agriculture to physics. And you go further to try and compare it to volume of research in various disciplines.

I wish you could go on to explain the technical aspect of how Hebrew words could created a chicken or how dust could be converted to a man.

OLAADEGBU:

Firstly, that birds belong in the reptilia class is netheir opinion nor dogma, but a taxonomic classification. You'll also notice that I mentioned earlier that the evidence suggests that several dinosaurs were endothermic and some early birds may have been exothermic.

Second, I know what endothermic means. It doesn't change the fact, though, that findings have led us to realise that species of dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Okay?

Finally, here's a question: why do you think all dinosaurs were exothermic? And does that apply to the likes of archeopteryx and other transitionals?

This is what another sincere evolutionist says about the classification of dinosaurs:

Dr. Larry Martins, of the univ. of Kansas, "Recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones was characteristic of cold-blooded animals, so we are back to cold-blooded dinosaurs". - Stieg, Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 1997.

Except we have this:

"Bone Structure - It is possible to note significant differences in microscopic bone structure between warm-blooded and cold-blooded animals. Dinosaur bone clearly shows a warm-blooded structure. This appears much stronger evidence than the mere overall design of the bone and effectively refutes the structure argument for ectothermy."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/a590294

Yay! my quote is more up to date than yours. Interesting you still managed to ignore most of the things I wrote.

Nonsense. There's plenty of evidence that several species of dinosaurs were endothermic, from their feeding and lifestyle modes to physical traits like feathers for insulation.

One of the lines that you guys claim as "evidence" for endothermic dinosaurs is based on the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones. Fossil dinosaur bones have been found containing special microscopic structures called osteons (or Haversian systems). This arrangement is assumed by some to be unique to endothermic animals and thus evidence that dinosaurs are endothermic, but such is not the case. Larger vertebrates (whether reptiles, birds or mammals) may also have this type of bone. Even tuna fish have osteonal bone in their vertebral arches. Another argument for endothermy in dinosaurs is based on the eggs and assumed brood behaviour of dinosaurs, but this speculation too has been challenged (see N.R. Geist and T.D. Jones, Juvenile skeletal structure and reproduction habits of dinosaurs, Science 272:712-714,1996).

First, you are right that it is the structure of the bones of the fossils of dinosaurs that have helped in the understanding of the endothermic nature of several of them. The thing is, though, that while different classes of animals may have osteons, there are different types and the type of osteon and the history of the organism can be told and differentiated. As for the egg and brood behaviour issues, um, challenged how? Simply saying "they have been challenged" isn't an argument in itself. That - like the theory of evolution - different lines of evidence point to the same conclusion - that many dinosaur species were endothermic - is a strong indication and argument.

Further, of course the Sinosauropteryx prima is "unbird-like". It wasn't some kind of proto-bird. It was a dinosaur with feathers. Also, that the feathers of the Sinosauropteryx prima was hollow belies any argument that it wasn't feathers.

Finally, yeah, birds and dinosaur-birds transitionals - for example, the archeopteryx - have been found in layers that even precede the Sinosauropteryx prima, but um, no one has said Sinosauropteryx is the ancestor of modern birds or proto-birds.

The only obvious dinosaur fossil with obvious feathers that was "found" is Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. This so called definitive feathered dinosaur was reported with much fanfare in the November 1999 issue of National Geographic but has since been shown to be a fraud as usual.

Let me remind you of what Feduccia, a bird expert and evolutionist, said: "the major and most worrying problem of the feathered dinosaurs hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information."

Thanks for the reminder, which actually means nothing. In any case, what the hell are you talking about in regards of archaeoraptor? I'll discuss that fossil later in this post. Incidentally, you will notice that I did give you an example of a dinosaur with feathers. Would you like me to give you more examples other than sinosauropteryx? As usual you ignored it, preferring, instead, to use a red herring (take note davidylan, that's how how it's used). and what I suspect is a quote mine.

Wait, why is Feduccia sincere? Because you wish he is? The fact remains that Feduccia has constantly ignored new findings and any evidence that show he is wrong about the view of bird evolution he has had for decades. Feduccia, despite the fact he accepts the theory of evolution, has ironically become the darling of Creationists because he practices the same thing they do: ignore reality and all evidence.

If I were you I would read of the quotes of your fellow sincere evolutionists, even though they may be sincerely wrong about their worldview but they were at least sincere in their field of speciality.

You still haven't told me why Feduccia is sincere. You also ignored the fact "that Feduccia has constantly ignored new findings and any evidence that show he is wrong about the view of bird evolution he has had for decades. Feduccia, despite the fact he accepts the theory of evolution, has ironically become the darling of Creationists because he practices the same thing they do: ignore reality and all evidence."

Nice ducking of the question, dude. I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Deal? Um, no "legitimate dinosaurs with feathers? What about the sinosauropteryx? Or, what, you think it's a bird now? Or the Caudipteryx zoui? Yeah, can't wait for the express dodge.

I did not duck your question, I answered it. I even quoted what Feduccia lamented about when he said and I repeat for the upteenth time: "the major and most worrying problem of the feathered dinosaur hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information." If you want to read up on it read A. Feduccia, T. Lingham-Soliar, and J.R. Hinchliffe, Do feathered dinosaurs exist?

You did duck the queestion. See question: "So, um, wanna try again on the differences between dinosaurs and birds?"

See your response: "Why don't you explain to me the mechanism to change scales into feathers, mechanism to change a reptilian lung into an avian lung? The fact that there are no legitimate dinosaurs found with feathers are all good indications that dinosaurs didn't turn into birds. The evidence is still consistent with what the Bible teaches about birds being unique and created after their kinds."

Yeah, that's what I thought. Now am I to take it that your only response to the findings of dinosaurs with feathers - some much after the Feduccia quote - is to quote Feduccia? Look that doesn't take away the evidence. More that the feathers of Caudipteryx zoui, for instance, was plume like, should make anyone rethink their position unless, of course, their position is dogma.

So, say an animal like the archeopteryx with traditionally dinosaurian traits like: Lacking a bill; socketed teeth; Nostrils on the snout ; Unfused vertebrae of the trunk, etc. are we to assume that it is. . . which kind?

Your so called Archaeoraptor liaoningensis has been found out to be a fraud, why don't check up the National Geographic and correct the error of yours and your students that has been spread in the media, schools and publications instead of projecting a lie that has been found out.

Um, archeopteryx is different from archeoraptor. Totally and completely different. Oh dear, how embarrassing for you. Wanna try again? "So, say an animal like the archeopteryx with traditionally dinosaurian traits like: Lacking a bill; socketed teeth; Nostrils on the snout ; Unfused vertebrae of the trunk, etc. are we to assume that it is. . . which kind?"

Now to the archeoraptor issue. First, the fraud was practiced on the science community by non-scientists out to make a quick buck. Unsurprisingly, though, the fraud was also discovered by the science community, and not Creationist non-scientists.

Second, um, no one has spread archeoraptor in the media and schools. It has been acknowledged by all circles for what it is.

Thirdly, the fossils that were fused together to produce archeoraptor have been studied and have also given good results.

Donkeys and horses are of course of the same kind and if you think that humans and chimps are of the same kind as you have been taught why don't you try and reproduce your kind with one of them, that, if you have not tried it before.

You missed the important part, though. The genetic variance between the two is comparable - or even probably greater - to that between humans and chimps. If they are the same kind then by Creationist classifications humans and chimps must surely be the same kind.

The fact of creation and the order of creation affirm the fact that birds and dinosaurs originated separately. QED

"QED", you used it wrong. So what fact of creation would that be? Any way it can be tested and falsified?

@Wirinet: « #12 on: August 02, 2009, 08:22 PM »

Jamiru, your definition of evolve and evolution is just in one strict sense as applied to "evolution of species". Evolution itself in a more general sense mean a gradual change. If you have studied any discipline in a higher institution, i am sure you would have studied other types of evoultion. I for example studied evolution of various architectural Styles and element under architecture. Others studies evolution of Societies, some even study evolution of religions.

So if you want to talk evolution of Species on earth as proposed by Darwin, then say so.

Its obvious that Jamiru was inquiring about evolution of man from some remote specie(s), which is less intelligent, less important than human. This is the hypothesis that Darwin and his cronies have been peddling, not a mere usage of new building materials and elements and styles. Is there an evidence of Darwin hypothesis? No.

Your idea to indicate that 'various achitectural styles and elements' can be used to argue any form of evolution ignores the fact that the designers and builders of these "various architectural styles and elements" are the unchanging humans. The styles and elements are developed and enacted based on the simple statement of logic/practicality of Form follows function. You can't build a 200 storey high building by no use of building machineries like cranes, and yet for cost effectiveness, etc it will not make any economic sense to build it in stones, or bricks, etc! Technology is not evolution, it is simply development, not evolvement.

olabowale:

@Wirinet: « #12 on: August 02, 2009, 08:22 PM » Its obvious that Jamiru was inquiring about evolution of man from some remote specie(s), which is less intelligent, less important than human. This is the hypothesis that Darwin and his cronies have been peddling, not a mere usage of new building materials and elements and styles. Is there an evidence of Darwin hypothesis? No.

Your idea to indicate that 'various achitectural styles and elements' can be used to argue any form of evolution ignores the fact that the designers and builders of these "various architectural styles and elements" are the unchanging humans. The styles and elements are developed and enacted based on the simple statement of logic/practicality of Form follows function. You can't build a 200 storey high building by no use of building machineries like cranes, and yet for cost effectiveness, etc it will not make any economic sense to build it in stones, or bricks, etc! Technology is not evolution, it is simply development, not evolvement.

For once I agree with u

wirinet:

I am not bluffing or attempting to ridicule you, but state my observations, whereby you search creationists sites and just copy and paste without having a general understanding of what is being discussed. And I think it will be unfair to accuse me of not addressing issues, i always try and explain in simple terms your questions, but most of the time you do not even try and reason my arguments, you just keep repeating what you copied from other websites like a mantra.

Let me remind you of your bluffing, ridicule and use of ad Hominem instead of addressing the issue at hand in the thread below for you to see that you have been conservative with the truth.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-285032.32.html#bot

wirinet:

Science is not like religion where you have to tow generally accepted dogma. Scientist make propositions based on available data, and those propositions are either modified or discarded completely with collection of new data. Also scientist are free to disagree with established theories and hypothesis and proffer their own, they only need to convince other scientists and present data that supports their new hypothesis. SO there is hardly any field of science that 100% accepted by all scientist, there are always a few renegades. That is what makes science dynamic.

Let me educate you on the meaning of science and scientists.  There is what is called operational science and historical or origin science, and your bias will depend on your worldview, evolutionism or creationism.

The science that addresses such issues is known as historical or origins science, and it differs from the operational science that gives us computers, inexpensive food, space exploration, electricity, and the like.  Origins science deals with the past, which is not accessible to direct experimentation, whereas operational science deals with how the world works in the here and now, which, of course, is open to repeatable experiments.  Because of difficulties in reconstructing the past, those who study fossils (paleontologists) have diverse views on dinosaurs.  As has been said, “Paleontology (the study of fossils) is much like politics: passions run high, and it’s easy to draw very different conclusions from the same set of facts.”  That is why peer reviews even though is a good idea but suffers from envy, biases and neglet from those who don't share the same worldview.

A paleontologist who believes the record in the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God, will come to different conclusions than an atheist who rejects the Bible.  Willful denial of God’s Word (2 Peter 3:3–7) lies at the root of many disputes over historical science.

wirinet:

You are not exactly correct, scientists do not think that dinosaurs evolve directly into bird, they say that dinosaurs are close evolutionary relatives to modern birds, just like the chimpanzee is a close evolutionary relative of man, but chimps cannot evolved to become man, they branched off some 5 - 6 millions years ago.

I am not surprised that if you gather 1000 evolutionists together you will get 1001 different views on the same subject.  Thomas Huxley first speculated that birds evolved from dinosaurs, then his disciples assumed that the dinosaurs all died out 65 million years ago when they were destroyed by meteorites, other confused evolutionists also fantasised that they evolved from reptiles and dinosaurs and your group now believes that they share a common ancestry with the dinosaurs but you are still divided over whether birds evolved from some early shared ancestor of the dinosaurs within the archosauria (i.e. thecodonts) or directly from advanced theropod dinosaurs (i.e. T. rex).  It depends on who can spin it more with the aid of the media.

wirinet:

Further more the quote above are gimmicks of the press to create interest. You know the way the press works, they try to sensationalize issues to create public attention.

You are again economical with the truth here.  You are well aware that it is the other way round.  That it is the evolutionists that use the media, school textbooks and publications to spin their lies and half truths.

wirinet:

I have said it before, that dinosaurs were first thought to be Large Lizards, but after many finds of numerous bones and fossils, they discarded that idea and realized that Dinosaurs are a different class of animals on their own, and the families of that class was much larger that the families of birds we have today. Further more the classification of dinosaurs was very loose, so it was not classed on whether they are cold blooded or warm blooded, or whether they are feathered or not.

Who are those doing the classification?  If you want the proper classification you will have to start from the book of Genesis and see first how God classified the birds into their different "kinds" before Adam was given the task of sub classifying or sub categorising them.  I am not surprised that you ignored all the science journals that I quoted just for you express your fantasy that you want to believe

wirinet:

You are trying to hard to straight jacket classifications, for example not all birds have feathers, not all birds can fly and birds are not the only class of animals that can fly.

Kindly enlighten us on the kind of birds that have no feathers.  I agree that not all birds can now fly, most ornithologists say these birds are secondary flightless, that is, they have lost the ability to fly due to variance within "kind" or mutational losses since creation, the jury is still out on this.  However, extinct flying reptiles are not classified as dinosaurs.  The Bible still affirms that birds and dinosaurs originated separately.

wirinet:

You people try to push you beliefs using absurd interpretations and linguistic gymnastics. No where in genesis did it say God created a class of animals called Birds, what it said was that " and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven". Do penguins and ostrich belong to the the "fowl class". Also how can they get to the firmament of heaven which was created on the second day. I thought firmament was space in which stars and planets were placed.

In the first chapter of Genesis, verse 21, we read that on Day 5 of creation, God created "every winged fowl after its kind."  This includes birds that flew above the earth (Genesis 1:20).  Man and land animals were created on Day 6 of the Creation Week (Genesis 1:24-31).  Were there land birds that didn't fly originally, such as penguins and ostrich?  That may be possible but it is also possible that these flightless birds lost the ability to fly due to mutational losses since creation.  So the best possibility is that bird were created on Day 5 as flyers, and some have lost this ability, I will have to go out on a limb here.

wirinet:

What i find irrational is the attempt by you to use a few lines of assertions like "and let there be" to give a technical explanation for the workings of everything, from biology to agriculture to physics. And you go further to try and compare it to volume of research in various disciplines.

I wish you could go on to explain the technical aspect of how Hebrew words could created a chicken or how dust could be converted to a man.

The Bible declares 10 times in Genesis chapter 1 that all things created by God was given power to reproduce its own kind.  It also says 9 times in the same chapter that "God said", that is, He created by the Power of His Word, supernaturally.  Not one thing could break this law and produce any other kind till today as we are speaking.  If you insist on knowing how God did it, then read the verse in Hebrew 11:3 that says:

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

KAG:

This is what another sincere evolutionist says about the classification of dinosaurs:

Dr. Larry Martins, of the univ. of Kansas, "Recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones was characteristic of cold-blooded animals, so we are back to cold-blooded dinosaurs". - Stieg, Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 1997.

Except we have this:

"Bone Structure - It is possible to note significant differences in microscopic bone structure between warm-blooded and cold-blooded animals. Dinosaur bone clearly shows a warm-blooded structure. This appears much stronger evidence than the mere overall design of the bone and effectively refutes the structure argument for ectothermy."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/a590294

Yay! my quote is more up to date than yours. Interesting you still managed to ignore most of the things I wrote.

I gave you at least four quotes and references from science journals and all you could do was to counter them with spin from the media such as bbc   Even wirinet would tell you that all they are concerned about is in sensationalism as they did to the so called missing link called "Ida."

KAG:

First, you are right that it is the structure of the bones of the fossils of dinosaurs that have helped in the understanding of the endothermic nature of several of them. The thing is, though, that while different classes of animals may have osteons, there are different types and the type of osteon and the history of the organism can be told and differentiated. As for the egg and brood behaviour issues, um, challenged how? Simply saying "they have been challenged" isn't an argument in itself. That - like the theory of evolution - different lines of evidence point to the same conclusion - that many dinosaur species were endothermic - is a strong indication and argument.

It is surprising that you did not see what was written after the word "challenged" even when I suggested the reference of the article.

KAG:

Thanks for the reminder, which actually means nothing. In any case, what the hell are you talking about in regards of archaeoraptor? I'll discuss that fossil later in this post. Incidentally, you will notice that I did give you an example of a dinosaur with feathers. Would you like me to give you more examples other than sinosauropteryx? As usual you ignored it, preferring, instead, to use a red herring (take note davidylan, that's how how it's used). and what I suspect is a quote mine.

You are the one using red herring in response to my post.  Did you not ignore the link I posted regarding the fraud you now propagate?  Here is the link once again, I believe that you will not pretend not to see it.

http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaurs-vs-birds-fossils-dont-lie/

KAG:

You did duck the queestion. See question: "So, um, wanna try again on the differences between dinosaurs and birds?"

See your response: "Why don't you explain to me the mechanism to change scales into feathers, mechanism to change a reptilian lung into an avian lung? The fact that there are no legitimate dinosaurs found with feathers are all good indications that dinosaurs didn't turn into birds. The evidence is still consistent with what the Bible teaches about birds being unique and created after their kinds."

I didn't bother to waste my time repeating what I had already done.  My response was on the point, it is you that hasn't addressed it.  The differences I highlighted there was in regards to the scales and feathers dissimiliarity, the avian vs. the reptilian lung and I may now add the "bird-hipped" vs the "Lizard-hipped" dinosaurs.  What I actually did was to ask you to explain the mechanism that powered the transition to the other but then it seemed that I was expecting too much from you.

KAG:

Yeah, that's what I thought. Now am I to take it that your only response to the findings of dinosaurs with feathers - some much after the Feduccia quote - is to quote Feduccia? Look that doesn't take away the evidence. More that the feathers of Caudipteryx zoui, for instance, was plume like, should make anyone rethink their position unless, of course, their position is dogma.
Your so called Archaeoraptor liaoningensis has been found out to be a fraud, why don't check up the National Geographic and correct the error of yours and your students that has been spread in the media, schools and publications instead of projecting a lie that has been found out.

Um, archeopteryx is different from archeoraptor. Totally and completely different. Oh dear, how embarrassing for you. Wanna try again? "So, say an animal like the archeopteryx with traditionally dinosaurian traits like: Lacking a bill; socketed teeth; Nostrils on the snout ; Unfused vertebrae of the trunk, etc. are we to assume that it is. . . which kind?"

Now to the archeoraptor issue. First, the fraud was practiced on the science community by non-scientists out to make a quick buck. Unsurprisingly, though, the fraud was also discovered by the science community, and not Creationist non-scientists.

Second, um, no one has spread archeoraptor in the media and schools. It has been acknowledged by all circles for what it is.

Thirdly, the fossils that were fused together to produce archeoraptor have been studied and have also given good results.

You missed the important part, though. The genetic variance between the two is comparable - or even probably greater - to that between humans and chimps. If they are the same kind then by Creationist classifications humans and chimps must surely be the same kind.

Take your time to peruse the link I supplied above or is it now below?

http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaurs-vs-birds-fossils-dont-lie/

KAG:

"QED", you used it wrong. So what fact of creation would that be? Any way it can be tested and falsified?

I'll leave you to carry on with your semantics which will not carry you beyond the natural and since the natural is the product of the supernatural you will be at loss when it comes to the Power of the uncreated Creator who is the Eternal, Infinite and Supremely Intelligent God.

olabowale:

@Wirinet: « #12 on: August 02, 2009, 08:22 PM »   Its obvious that Jamiru was inquiring about evolution of man from some remote specie(s), which is less intelligent, less important than human. This is the hypothesis that Darwin and his cronies have been peddling, not a mere usage of new building materials and elements and styles. Is there an evidence of Darwin hypothesis? No.

Your idea to indicate that 'various architectural styles and elements' can be used to argue any form of evolution ignores the fact that the designers and builders of these "various architectural styles and elements" are the unchanging humans. The styles and elements are developed and enacted based on the simple statement of logic/practicality of Form follows function. You can't build a 200 storey high building by no use of building machineries like cranes, and yet for cost effectiveness, etc it will not make any economic sense to build it in stones, or bricks, etc! Technology is not evolution, it is simply development, not evolvement.  

This was Jamiru's original question;

please athiest, has evolution ended its evolving or are we still in the process?

It is not obvious that Jamiru was inquiring about evolution of man from some remote specie(s), which is less intelligent, less important than human, in fact that is your own question. And if you want to ask that question open a new thread and we would help you out with that specific question.

I tried to explain what evolution means and how evolution can never end.  I was using architecture to explain an example of what evolution means, it is wrong to assume evolution only applies to species or specifically to man.

I am sorry to say that your example makes no sense; Architecture is a human trait, and what do you mean by unchanging humans, are you talking of unchanging physical characteristics, or unchanging needs and technology? please elaborate.

I also want you to know that there are two schools of Architecture; there is the school that believes form follows function, while another believes function follows form. And I am more inclined to the latter.

your final statement is what i will call for lack of a better word "jagbajantis", First no body had been able to build a 200 storey building, the highest building is about 120 stories and it is in Taiwan.  Secondly the pyramids of Gaza which is quite tall (i cant remember its exact height), and numerous ancient buildings were built without cranes and machinery.

When we study Architecture, you will study the evolution various styles and elements. An example is the evolution of Benben to become pyramids.

@ wirinet


seems like u have no answers to my questions. . . .

Sorry Noetic i couldnt respond because i was not online. In response to your questions: How did evolution start? Science says evolution started with the Big Bang, the bible says the Earth was without form and God said let there be light and there was light. Also, i didnt claim i know the mind of God but the bible says he's ways are not our ways, the bible says a thousand years is like a day to God and a day to God is like a thousand years to Man. Basically, we dont have same standard measurement for time. Also since there is a dynamic and ever changing equilibrium between the biosphere and the atmosphere, the earth and all therein will continue to evolve - we are now going thru global warming - plants and animals that are warmth and carbon loving will thrive while others will die but a threshold will be reached in years ahead that will reverse the trend. In others words we will experience ice age and warm ade intermittently. The explains evolution - animals and plants will continue to mutate and adapt themselves to the state of the atmosphere and the atmospher likewise

OLAADEGBU:

Let me remind you of your bluffing, ridicule and use of ad Hominem instead of addressing the issue at hand in the thread below for you to see that you have been conservative with the truth.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-285032.32.html#bot

I have looked at the said post and i will include it below;

Typical of religious fundamentalists, they prefer to attack personalities instead of idea, soon they will turn their verbal attacks into physical attacks. Even if Darwin and Co were said those things, did it remove anything from his observations and theory. If he held those views, those are his personal views. Most European of the 16th and 17th century held the view that Blacks were inferior because of the state they met us. Also most blacks saw the whites were superior, in fact this inferiority complex still afflict a lot of blacks. In fact we blacks depend on the white for every thing, our religion, our language, our clothes, etc. we are wholly depended on white technology to survive. So  do not use 16th century attitudes to fault current scientific thoughts and theories, i do not see the connection.

Olaadegun, it is fruitless discussing with you, you have zero understanding of the concepts you are attempting to argue, you have been copying and pasting for as long as i have known you. I had tried in some occasions to educate you on basic science but you are usually not interested in learning. You just continue to spew out the some religious dogma we had heard since our toddler days. Also i had advised you  to be content with your religious dogma and leave science.
It is highly irrational for a non scientist ( a theologian) to argue with a scientist on science. It is like a pilot arguing with a musician on the workings of a plane.

You should get it into your psyche that the Bible and it doctrine does not make sense to over 60% of the world population. I find it hard to believe that one book is an authority unto itself, meaning the Bible is the only proof of the authenticity of the Bible, or the Bible is the proof of God and God is the the proof of the Bible.

If you feel ridiculed by my comments, then i am sorry, it was not intended to do that.  

OLAADEGBU:

Let me educate you on the meaning of science and scientists.  There is what is called operational science and historical or origin science, and your bias will depend on your worldview, evolutionism or creationism.

The science that addresses such issues is known as historical or origins science, and it differs from the operational science that gives us computers, inexpensive food, space exploration, electricity, and the like.  Origins science deals with the past, which is not accessible to direct experimentation, whereas operational science deals with how the world works in the here and now, which, of course, is open to repeatable experiments.  Because of difficulties in reconstructing the past, those who study fossils (paleontologists) have diverse views on dinosaurs.  As has been said, “Paleontology (the study of fossils) is much like politics: passions run high, and it’s easy to draw very different conclusions from the same set of facts.”  That is why peer reviews even though is a good idea but suffers from envy, biases and neglet from those who don't share the same worldview.

Yes some emotion and ego may be involved in historical science, but that is also present in operational science, the good thing is that science has a way of correcting itself in the long run. As more data comes in, unsustainable hypothesis would become less popular. An excellent example is the debate between Einstein and Bohr on the quantum theory. Even though Einstein was a superstar and was emotionally attached to his theories, Bohr won the debate.

OLAADEGBU:

A paleontologist who believes the record in the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God, will come to different conclusions than an atheist who rejects the Bible.  Willful denial of God’s Word (2 Peter 3:3–7) lies at the root of many disputes over historical science.

There is no collection between paleontology and the Bible, the Bible is of no value to a person studying paleontology. The Bible just makes simplistic assertion to explain the thought of Mesopotamian beliefs.

OLAADEGBU:

Who are those doing the classification?  If you want the proper classification you will have to start from the book of Genesis and see first how God classified the birds into their different "kinds" before Adam was given the task of sub classifying or sub categorising them.  I am not surprised that you ignored all the science journals that I quoted just for you express your fantasy that you want to believe

God did not classify living things, and Adam did no sub classification or sub categorization. In fact the flora and fauna in ancient Mesopotamia which was the setting for the Adam and Eve story was highly limited. There were huge isolated plants and animals in the Antarctic, the American continents and Madagascar,  that the ancient Mesopotamians knew nothing about.

Classifications and categorization was done by scientist for easier identification of living things and to understand the relationships between them.

OLAADEGBU:

Kindly enlighten us on the kind of birds that have no feathers.  I agree that not all birds can now fly, most ornithologists say these birds are secondary flightless, that is, they have lost the ability to fly due to variance within "kind" or mutational losses since creation, the jury is still out on this.  However, extinct flying reptiles are not classified as dinosaurs.  The Bible still affirms that birds and dinosaurs originated separately.

I must admit my mistake here, all birds have feathers, i thought a penguin called "featherless Penguin has to feathers, but google had corrected my notion, it has feathers, it is just that they are very tiny.

OLAADEGBU:

In the first chapter of Genesis, verse 21, we read that on Day 5 of creation, God created "every winged fowl after its kind."  This includes birds that flew above the earth (Genesis 1:20).  Man and land animals were created on Day 6 of the Creation Week (Genesis 1:24-31).  Were there land birds that didn't fly originally, such as penguins and ostrich?  That may be possible but it is also possible that these flightless birds lost the ability to fly due to[b] mutationa[/b]l losses since creation.  So the best possibility is that bird were created on Day 5 as flyers, and some have lost this ability, I will have to go out on a limb here.

We are getting somewhere. You agree that through mutational changes (evolution), A flight bird ( one that is light and small enough to fly) can change to a flightless bird (one that is too big and heavy to fly).  That is progress.

OLAADEGBU:

The Bible declares 10 times in Genesis chapter 1 that all things created by God was given power to reproduce its own kind.  It also says 9 times in the same chapter that "God said", that is, He created by the Power of His Word, supernaturally.  Not one thing could break this law and produce any other kind till today as we are speaking.  If you insist on knowing how God did it, then read the verse in Hebrew 11:3 that says:

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

As scientists we are interested to know exactly which words God used to create these things, and see how it can be applied. Or better still break up created things into its component words.

seyenko:

Sorry Noetic i couldnt respond because i was not online. In response to your questions: How did evolution start? Science says evolution started with the Big Bang, the bible says the Earth was without form and God said let there be light and there was light. Also, i didnt claim i know the mind of God but the bible says he's ways are not our ways, the bible says a thousand years is like a day to God and a day to God is like a thousand years to Man. Basically, we dont have same standard measurement for time. Also since there is a dynamic and ever changing equilibrium between the biosphere and the atmosphere, the earth and all therein will continue to evolve - we are now going thru global warming - plants and animals that are warmth and carbon loving will thrive while others will die but a threshold will be reached in years ahead that will reverse the trend. In others words we will experience ice age and warm ade intermittently. The explains evolution - animals and plants will continue to mutate and adapt themselves to the state of the atmosphere and the atmospher likewise

Science did not say evolution started with the big bang. The misconception of evolution is the reason i go to great length to explain the term evolution.

As i have said earlier, evolution itself does not explain the formation or the start of the process we are examining, it only goes on to explain the changes that have taken place since the start of the process.

For example in explaining the universe, the big bang theory deals with the start of the universe, while evolution deals with how matter, gasses, planet, stars, galaxies, etc, evolved from that start.

In the evolution of life, Abiogenesis and biochemistry explains the formation of Organic molecules from simple inorganic matter, and goes on to explain the formation of DNA and the first single celled organism. Then Evolution goes on to explain how the first single celled organism went on to form the hundreds of thousands of species that have existed since then.

The argument that evolutionists make on the basis of similiarity to connote common ancestry is not plausible. They say that man and apes are so similar therefore they must have come from a common ancestor. This is unscientific, irrational, unreasonable and illogical. Resemblance proves nothing but resemblance. Similiarity proves nothing but similiarity. Resemblance or similiarity run throughout all nature in things that have no connection with each other. Resemblance or similiarity on some points is to be expected even though we accept creation by God. Such only magnifies the fact of an Intelligent Creator. This is true whether it is the Creator or a manufacturer as in every factory of man. The wheel, for example, is the same in the wagon, the car, locomotive and aeroplane. But such similiarity does not prove that the wagon evolved into a car, then into a locomotive and finally into a plane.

All animals and men have the same kind of faculties to breathe, eat, and to carry out other bodily functions, but no such similarity proves close relationship. God made them thus so that all could exist alike in the same air and on similar foods. The dissimilarities between man and animals, not only in body, but also in brain, spirit and soul faculties prove that they are not vitally related. The differences between human and apes are so wide that any single bodily part is sufficient in itself to prove whether it is a part of man or ape.

Evolutionists themselves confirm this fact by their promptness in deciding whether a bone is from a monkey or a man. There are hundreds of differences between the bodies of humans and apes, and thousands of differences between these two in mental, moral, spiritual and habitual matters which prove that the evolution of man from molecules or apes an impossibility.

OLAADEGBU:

[quote]Firstly, that birds belong in the reptilia class is netheir opinion nor dogma, but a taxonomic classification. You'll also notice that I mentioned earlier that the evidence suggests that several dinosaurs were endothermic and some early birds may have been exothermic.

Second, I know what endothermic means. It doesn't change the fact, though, that findings have led us to realise that species of dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Okay?

Finally, here's a question: why do you think all dinosaurs were exothermic? And does that apply to the likes of archeopteryx and other transitionals?

This is what another sincere evolutionist says about the classification of dinosaurs:

Dr. Larry Martins, of the univ. of Kansas, "Recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones was characteristic of cold-blooded animals, so we are back to cold-blooded dinosaurs". - Stieg, Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 1997.

Except we have this:

"Bone Structure - It is possible to note significant differences in microscopic bone structure between warm-blooded and cold-blooded animals. Dinosaur bone clearly shows a warm-blooded structure. This appears much stronger evidence than the mere overall design of the bone and effectively refutes the structure argument for ectothermy."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/a590294

Yay! my quote is more up to date than yours. Interesting you still managed to ignore most of the things I wrote.

I gave you at least four quotes and references from science journals and all you could do was to counter them with spin from the media such as bbc   Even wirinet would tell you that all they are concerned about is in sensationalism as they did to the so called missing link called "Ida." [/quote]

Except, you didn't. Well, that's not totally accurate, you did give four quotes - or quotemines - in your entire post, but I responded to them individually, and that was my response to the first quote(mine?): findings that are more recent than yours. I keep forgetting that for your type of dogmatism, everything with which you disagree is sensationalist, and others that you think agree with you are "sincere". Your response isn't a rebuttal. I can give you a link to the study of the endothermic nature of dinosaurs as indicated by their bones if you promise to read it.

First, you are right that it is the structure of the bones of the fossils of dinosaurs that have helped in the understanding of the endothermic nature of several of them. The thing is, though, that while different classes of animals may have osteons, there are different types and the type of osteon and the history of the organism can be told and differentiated. As for the egg and brood behaviour issues, um, challenged how? Simply saying "they have been challenged" isn't an argument in itself. That - like the theory of evolution - different lines of evidence point to the same conclusion - that many dinosaur species were endothermic - is a strong indication and argument.

It is surprising that you did not see what was written after the word "challenged" even when I suggested the reference of the article.

And it's unsurprising that me talking about the quote mine ending in "challenged" was all you saw. Yeah, I what was written after challenged. I'll tell you what it wasn't, though, the rest of the quote telling us how those things have been challenged. Maybe you can help. Post the part that tells us how they've been challenged.

Thanks for the reminder, which actually means nothing. In any case, what the hell are you talking about in regards of archaeoraptor? I'll discuss that fossil later in this post. Incidentally, you will notice that I did give you an example of a dinosaur with feathers. Would you like me to give you more examples other than sinosauropteryx? As usual you ignored it, preferring, instead, to use a red herring (take note davidylan, that's how how it's used). and what I suspect is a quote mine.

You are the one using red herring in response to my post.  Did you not ignore the link I posted regarding the fraud you now propagate?  Here is the link once again, I believe that you will not pretend not to see it.



http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaurs-vs-birds-fossils-dont-lie/

Lol, no my post wasn't a red herring. You wrote this as a response to me pointing out that Sinosauropteryx was a dino with feathers and archeopteryx was found in layers preceding the Sinosauropteryx: "The only obvious dinosaur fossil with obvious feathers that was "found" is Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.".

I responded directly to thtat by giving yet another example in addition to Sinosauropteryx. Your red herring was insisting on going about archeoraptor, which I hadn't brought up, and I suspect you mixed up with archeopteryx. Well done, idiot.


Finally, don't just post a link at me - I could do the same. Instead, pick out the best argument and present it.

You did duck the queestion. See question: "So, um, wanna try again on the differences between dinosaurs and birds?"

See your response: "Why don't you explain to me the mechanism to change scales into feathers, mechanism to change a reptilian lung into an avian lung? The fact that there are no legitimate dinosaurs found with feathers are all good indications that dinosaurs didn't turn into birds. The evidence is still consistent with what the Bible teaches about birds being unique and created after their kinds."

I didn't bother to waste my time repeating what I had already done.  My response was on the point, it is you that hasn't addressed it.  The differences I highlighted there was in regards to the scales and feathers dissimiliarity, the avian vs. the reptilian lung and I may now add the "bird-hipped" vs the "Lizard-hipped" dinosaurs.  What I actually did was to ask you to explain the mechanism that powered the transition to the other but then it seemed that I was expecting too much from you.

You didn't mention all those. I'll address them individually:

Yes, there dissimilarities between scales and feathers. However, several species of dinosaurs had feathers. I have given two examples: Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx zoui. I can give more if required. We are thus left very few options: that those dinosaurs had feathers, and therefore it isn't a difference between birds and dinosaurs, or they weren't dinosaurs, but birds. The latter is absurd, and the former the most parsimonious. And before you say those dinosaurs didn't have feathers, consider that the feathers of the Caudipteryx zoui, especially, was plume like, hollow and in the same formation as that on modern birds.

Second, lungs. The shape and structure of the chest cavities of several dinosaurs indicate that they had the same lungs as aves.

Finally, different dinosaur speices had many different stances. You have no idea what you are talking about here. "Lizard-hipped" Seriosuly? Geez!

No, you weren't expecting anything, you wanted the question I asked to be drowned under a barrage of non-aligning question. I'll do you a solid. I'll answer your question separately since you mad an attempt at mine. You have to try again, though, because you got it wrong.

Wanna try again, because so far species of dinosaurs possess the same type of traits you mentioned as birds

Yeah, that's what I thought. Now am I to take it that your only response to the findings of dinosaurs with feathers - some much after the Feduccia quote - is to quote Feduccia? Look that doesn't take away the evidence. More that the feathers of Caudipteryx zoui, for instance, was plume like, should make anyone rethink their position unless, of course, their position is dogma.
Your so called Archaeoraptor liaoningensis has been found out to be a fraud, why don't check up the National Geographic and correct the error of yours and your students that has been spread in the media, schools and publications instead of projecting a lie that has been found out. Wink

Um, archeopteryx is different from archeoraptor. Totally and completely different. Oh dear, how embarrassing for you. Wanna try again? "So, say an animal like the archeopteryx with traditionally dinosaurian traits like: Lacking a bill; socketed teeth; Nostrils on the snout ; Unfused vertebrae of the trunk, etc. are we to assume that it is. . . which kind?"

Now to the archeoraptor issue. First, the fraud was practiced on the science community by non-scientists out to make a quick buck. Unsurprisingly, though, the fraud was also discovered by the science community, and not Creationist non-scientists.

Second, um, no one has spread archeoraptor in the media and schools. It has been acknowledged by all circles for what it is.

Thirdly, the fossils that were fused together to produce archeoraptor have been studied and have also given good results.

You missed the important part, though. The genetic variance between the two is comparable - or even probably greater - to that between humans and chimps. If they are the same kind then by Creationist classifications humans and chimps must surely be the same kind.

Take your time to peruse the link I supplied above or is it now below?

http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaurs-vs-birds-fossils-dont-lie/

Wonderful rebuttal. How about no, you put up the arguments that you think refutes what all I wrote instead. Don't just foist links at me.

"QED", you used it wrong. So what fact of creation would that be? Any way it can be tested and falsified?

I'll leave you to carry on with your semantics which will not carry you beyond the natural and since the natural is the product of the supernatural you will be at loss when it comes to the Power of the uncreated Creator who is the Eternal, Infinite and Supremely Intelligent God.

Yeah, that's what I thought. It's useless.

seyenko:

Sorry Noetic i couldnt respond because i was not online. In response to your questions: How did evolution start? Science says evolution started with the Big Bang, the bible says the Earth was without form and God said let there be light and there was light. Also, i didnt claim i know the mind of God but the bible says he's ways are not our ways, the bible says a thousand years is like a day to God and a day to God is like a thousand years to Man. Basically, we dont have same standard measurement for time. Also since there is a dynamic and ever changing equilibrium between the biosphere and the atmosphere, the earth and all therein will continue to evolve - we are now going thru global warming - plants and animals that are warmth and carbon loving will thrive while others will die but a threshold will be reached in years ahead that will reverse the trend. In others words we will experience ice age and warm ade intermittently. The explains evolution - animals and plants will continue to mutate and adapt themselves to the state of the atmosphere and the atmospher likewise

Let me understand u better. . . .are u saying that big bang is an act of God?

wirinet:

Science did not say evolution started with the big bang. The misconception of evolution is the reason i go to great length to explain the term evolution.

As i have said earlier, evolution itself does not explain the formation or the start of the process we are examining, it only goes on to explain the changes that have taken place since the start of the process.

why is it so difficult to then trace the very start of that process? according to u, evolution is a process, it is interesting to know the very inception of that process. . . .how and when did the process begin? is it not ambiguous to attempt to explain a process without gasping the pioneer concepts and stages?

For example in  explaining the universe, the big bang theory deals with the start of the universe, while evolution deals with how matter, gasses, planet, stars, galaxies, etc, evolved from that start.

a. what were the composing chemical reactions that enabled this same big bang.

b. since evolution is a continuous process, why is it so difficult to observe, record and reproduce this processes in this age and time?

In the evolution of life, Abiogenesis and biochemistry explains the formation of Organic molecules from simple inorganic matter, and goes on to explain the formation of DNA and the first single celled organism. Then Evolution goes on to explain how the first single celled organism went on to form the hundreds of thousands of species that have existed since then.

a. how were this organic molecules formed?

b. is it not a scientific or biological contradiction for organic matter to be formed from inorganic matter? can u explain that unique biological process that allows for this exception?

c. how was the first single celled organism formed? what were the components and catalyst of this formation process?

wirinet:

I have looked at the said post and i will include it below;
If you feel ridiculed by my comments, then i am sorry, it was not intended to do that. 

It will be better for others to view the whole post which is about two pages to get a panoramic view so as to come to their own conclusion.  I would have felt offended if I had expected you to do otherwise, anyways, apology accepted.

wirinet:

Yes some emotion and ego may be involved in historical science, but that is also present in operational science, the good thing is that science has a way of correcting itself in the long run. As more data comes in, unsustainable hypothesis would become less popular. An excellent example is the debate between Einstein and Bohr on the quantum theory. Even though Einstein was a superstar and was emotionally attached to his theories, Bohr won the debate.

It is not a matter of who wins the argument but who lost his soul in the process.  Whatever operational science you practice your worldview would be used to interprete anything historical that you cannot prove scientifically.  But don't make the mistake that your evolutionary worldview is scientific because it is not.  It is just your belief systeme.

wirinet:

There is no collection between paleontology and the Bible, the Bible is of no value to a person studying paleontology. The Bible just makes simplistic assertion to explain the thought of Mesopotamian beliefs.

I don't think you get it.  A paleontologist can either be a Christian or an evolutionist.  The Christian scientist would use his creationist worldview to explain and interprete the fossils he discovers while an evolutionist who is a paleontologist would view his evidence differently through his evolutionary spectacles.

wirinet:

God did not classify living things, and Adam did no sub classification or sub categorization. In fact the flora and fauna in ancient Mesopotamia which was the setting for the Adam and Eve story was highly limited. There were huge isolated plants and animals in the Antarctic, the American continents and Madagascar,  that the ancient Mesopotamians knew nothing about.

Classifications and categorization was done by scientist for easier identification of living things and to understand the relationships between them.

I do not expect you to be aware of the categorisation that God and Adam made in the Scriptures.  I think it will be better to talk about the categorisation made by men.

wirinet:

I must admit my mistake here, all birds have feathers, i thought a penguin called "featherless Penguin has to feathers, but google had corrected my notion, it has feathers, it is just that they are very tiny.

We thank God for google but google doesnt always have the answers.

wirinet:

We are getting somewhere. You agree that through mutational changes (evolution), A flight bird ( one that is light and small enough to fly) can change to a flightless bird (one that is too big and heavy to fly).  That is progress.

This is an example of where we are using the same language but interpreting it differently.  When I say mutational changes I mean natural selection.  Natural selection is biblical and it is a mechanism that God used to allow organisms to deal with their changing environment in a sin cursed world, especially after the Flood.  God foreknew that the Fall and the Flood were going to happen, and so He designed organisms with a great amount of genetic diversity that could be selected for or against, resulting in certain characteristics depending on the circumstances.

wirinet:

As scientists we are interested to know exactly which words God used to create these things, and see how it can be applied. Or better still break up created things into its component words.

Scientists who are biblical creationists create models through the study of God's Word and world and come to a better understanding of the thoughts and works of God.  But if you insist that God does not exist it will be impossible for you to know Him not to talk of knowing His works.  This journey starts with faith in His infallible Word of what He has revealed about Himself and His works.  See what Christian scientists that are creationists have discovered simply by studying God's Word and world;

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/bara-what

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/thirty-miles-of-dirt

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts. The rest are details." - Albert Einstein

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

KAG:

http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaurs-vs-birds-fossils-dont-lie/
Lol, no my post wasn't a red herring. You wrote this as a response to me pointing out that Sinosauropteryx was a dino with feathers and archeopteryx was found in layers preceding the Sinosauropteryx: "The only obvious dinosaur fossil with obvious feathers that was "found" is Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.".

If you read my response you will realise that I made no such claims that you are accusing me of.  The only dinosaur fossil that I said was with obvious feathers was the Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, and this was discovered to be a fraud.  So don't get excited that I acknowledged that any dinosaur had feathers, what they have are scales.  Sinosauropteryx are filamentous and sometimes have interlaced structures which bears no obvious resemblance to feathers.  They have been said to appear like connective tissue fibres (collagen) found in the deep dermal layer of the skin.  So, I don't know where you got the idea that I claimed that they are dinosaurs with feathers.  The fact that Archaeopteryx have teeth, fingers on its wings and a long tail does not prove that they are reptilian ancestry.  While there are no living birds with teeth, other fossilised birds such as Hesperornis also had teeth.  Some modern birds, such as the ostrich, have fingers on their wings, and the juvenile hoatzin(a south American bird) has well developed fingers and toes with which it can climb trees.

KAG:

You didn't mention all those. I'll address them individually:

Yes, there dissimilarities between scales and feathers. However, several species of dinosaurs had feathers. I have given two examples: Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx zoui. I can give more if required. We are thus left very few options: that those dinosaurs had feathers, and therefore it isn't a difference between birds and dinosaurs, or they weren't dinosaurs, but birds. The latter is absurd, and the former the most parsimonious. And before you say those dinosaurs didn't have feathers, consider that the feathers of the Caudipteryx zoui, especially, was plume like, hollow and in the same formation as that on modern birds.

Sinosauropteryx are dinosaurs while Caudipteryx are birds, that was a good try.  In actual fact feathers are profoundly different from scales in both their structure and growth.  Feathers grow individually from tube-like follicles similar to hair follicles.  Reptile scales, on the other hand, are not individual follicular structures but rather compromise a continuous sheet on the surface of the body.  While feathers grow and are shed individually, scales grow and are shed as an entire sheet of skin.

There is definitely no evidence of any transitional fossil that can be called "sceathers" that is, reptile scales evolving into feathers, knowing that these incredibly complex structure bears not the slightest resemblance to the relatively simple reptilian scale.

KAG:

Second, lungs. The shape and structure of the chest cavities of several dinosaurs indicate that they had the same lungs as aves.

One of the most distinctive features of birds is their lungs.  Bird lungs are small in size and nearly rigid, but they are, nevertheless, highly efficient to meet the high metabolic needs of flight.  Birds do not have diaphrams but reptiles do.  If theropod dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, one might expect to find evidence of an avian type lung in such dinosaurs.  While fossils generally don't preserve soft tissue as lungs, Sinosauropteryx fossil has been found in which the outline of the visceral cavity has been well preserved.  The evidence clearly indicates that this theropod had a lung and respiratory mechanics similar to that of a crocodile and not a bird.  Specifically, there was evidence of a diaphram like muscle separating the lung from the liver, this you will see in modern crocodiles but not in birds.

KAG:

Finally, different dinosaur speices had many different stances. You have no idea what you are talking about here. "Lizard-hipped" Seriosuly? Geez!

I must say that you are the one who's got no clue of the two major groups of dinosaurs based on the structure of their hips (pelvic bones): the lizard hipped dinosaurs and the bird hipped dinosaurs.  The main difference between the two hip structures is that the pubic bone of the bird hipped dinosaurs is directed toward the rear (as in birds) rather entirely to the front (as in mammals and reptiles).  In most other respects, the bird hipped dinosaurs are even less bird-like than the lizard-hipped, bipedal dinosaurs, such as the theropods.  This point is rarely emphasised in popular accounts of dinosaur/bird evolution for obvious reasons.

KAG:

No, you weren't expecting anything, you wanted the question I asked to be drowned under a barrage of non-aligning question. I'll do you a solid. I'll answer your question separately since you mad an attempt at mine. You have to try again, though, because you got it wrong.

You have shown that you ai'nt got a clue on the differences above.

KAG:

Wanna try again, because so far species of dinosaurs possess the same type of traits you mentioned as birds

The evidence above proves otherwise.
http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaurs-vs-birds-fossils-dont-lie/

KAG:

Wonderful rebuttal. How about no, you put up the arguments that you think refutes what all I wrote instead. Don't just foist links at me.

Again see the rebuttal above and learn from it.  Feathers have long been considered to be unique to birds.  Certainly all living birds have feathers of some kind, while no living creature other than birds have feathers has been found to have a cutaneou appendage even remotely similar to a feather.  Dinosaurs are reptiles, and so it is not surprising that fossil evidence has shown them to have a scaly skin typical of reptiles.  For example, a recently discovered well preserved specimen of Compsognathus (a small theropod dinosaur of the type believed to be most closely related to birds) showed unmistakable evidence of scales but alas -- no feathers.

U.B. Gohlich and L.M. Chiappe, A new carnivorous dinosaur from the late Jurassic Solnhofen archipelago, Nature 440:329-332,2006.

KAG:

Yeah, that's what I thought. It's useless.

This is what Isaac Newton said: "Atheism is so senseless"   

@Wirinet: « #112 on: Yesterday at 02:04:50 PM »

This was Jamiru's original question;
Quote
please athiest, has evolution ended its evolving or are we still in the process?

It will hard to believe that Jamiru or those who are not evolutionists meant anything but creationism, when they asked the question type hilighted. You as a person who is arguig for evolution should know that architecture on its own does not evolve, the designer evolves in his style of design to fit the usage of what the dwelling will is to be.

I tried to explain what evolution means and how evolution can never end. I was using architecture to explain an example of what evolution means, it is wrong to assume evolution only applies to species or specifically to man.

You could have helped your position if only you could persuade us that after the the structure is in place, it somehow evolved to a newer, completely different thing, however subtle, but adapt perfectly with its usage. For example a piazza suddenly becomes a building by growing walls and or roof to house people from the weather elements, or a building elongates by many floors to house more people or the materials, eg glass door becomes a wooden or steel door on its own because it senses the possibility of its sturdiness, or to hide the interior from the view of people outside. In short any and all of its changes on its own without the humans to put them in place.

I am sorry to say that your example makes no sense; ]b]Architecture is a human trait,[/b] and what do you mean by unchanging humans, are you talking of unchanging physical characteristics, or unchanging needs and technology? please elaborate.

Architecture is more that human trait. Every animal is an architect. The rats develop their own dwellings. Beaers are the best dam constructors, ever. Unchanging human simply means the human is constant in what makes him human, in his physical characteristics. He is different from lions, for example. I am avoiding to use Chimpanzee, or other so called primates for obvious reasons. Needs and technology depend on the stage and state of the necessity of man.

I also want you to know that there are two schools of Architecture; there is the school that believes form follows function, while another believes function follows form. And I am more inclined to the latter.

Just like design styles are restricted to void versus solid and or solid versus void, you do not ave any third of the expression form follows function or funtion follows form.

your final statement is what i will call for lack of a better word "jagbajantis", First no body had been able to build a 200 storey building, the highest building is about 120 stories and it is in Taiwan. Secondly the pyramids of Gaza which is quite tall (i cant remember its exact height), and numerous ancient buildings were built without cranes and machinery.

Wirinet, you should now better that tere was a time in human history that 10 storey building was a thing of the future, becasue it was unnecessary. Before long 200 storey building and higher shall be a thing of the past. Reason, sometimes in the future, even the today's cutting edge technologies shall be yesterday's archaics. And by the way, you forgot that I mentioned cost effectiveness, so your Giza pyramid was a labor of slavery. Is that emotionally efficient even for an atheist?

When we study Architecture, you will study the evolution various styles and elements. An example is the evolution of Benben to become pyramids.

This is reason Darwin proposed is evolutionary Hypothesis, a theory yet unproven? Where is the natural selection in the the benben to pyramid evolutionary process according to you? Did amggot developed Benben and Human developed Pyramids?

Evolutionary Fraud

Did dinosaurs soar?  Imaginations certainly took flight over Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis, a birdlike fossil with a meat-eater's tail that was spirited out of northeastern China, 'discovered' at a Tuscon, Arizona, gem and mineral show in 1999, and displayed at the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C.  Some 110,000 visitors saw the exhibit, which closed January 17; millions more read about the find in November's National Geographic.  Now, paleontologists are eating crow.  Instead of 'a true missing link' connecting dinosaurs to birds, the specimen appears to be a composite, its unusual appendage likely tacked on by a Chinese farmer, not evolution.

"Archaeoraptor is hardly the first 'missing link' to snap under scrutiny.  In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in England's Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man's ape-like ancestor.  It took decades to reveal the hoax." -- U.S.  News & World Report, February 14, 2000.

"Darwin admitted that millions of 'missing links,' transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species.  Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist
if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated."  Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God

"The gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead.  No paleontologist . . . denies that this is so.  It is simply a fact.  Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict." -- David Berlinsky

"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record." -- Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977

"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing." -- G.K. Chesterton.

http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaurs-vs-birds-fossils-dont-lie/

evolution is not an atheist idea. many leaders in the catholic church agree with evolution its called "inteligent design" by the catholic church. "creationism" is the other idea of teh catholic church that says evolution is false. the last survey i saw about the subject said christians in the us are pretty evenly split between the two and many other religions agree with the idea.

as far as is evolution still present? look at people. wisdom teeth, tonsils and apendix have been routinly removed for hundreds of years (wisdom teeth were removed by the ancient greeks) because of infection. some children today are being born without tonsils and wisdom teeth dont grom/ or never erupt in close to 10% of the population. this is a modern day very recognisable example of evolution.

Evolution disproves the Bible!

The Book of Genesis tells us that everything was created by God nothing evolved. Every creature was given the ability to reproduce after its own kind as is stated ten times in Genesis 1. Dogs do not produce cats. Neither do cats and dogs have a common ancestry. Dogs began as dogs and are still dogs. They vary in species from Chihuahuas to Saint Bernards, but you will not find a "dat" or a "cog" (part cat and part dog) throughout God's creation. Frogs don't reproduce oysters, cows don't have lambs and pregnant pigs don't give birth to rabbits. God made monkeys as monkeys and man as man. Each creature "brings forth after its own kind." That's no theory; its a fact.

Why should we believe that man comes from another species? If evolution is true, then it is proof that the Bible is false. However, the whole of creation stands in contradiction to the theory of evolution.

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." -- 1 Corinthians 15:39

OLAADEGBU:

"Lol, no my post wasn't a red herring. You wrote this as a response to me pointing out that Sinosauropteryx was a dino with feathers and archeopteryx was found in layers preceding the Sinosauropteryx: "The only obvious dinosaur fossil with obvious feathers that was "found" is Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.".

I responded directly to thtat by giving yet another example in addition to Sinosauropteryx. Your red herring was insisting on going about archeoraptor, which I hadn't brought up, and I suspect you mixed up with archeopteryx. Well done, idiot."

If you read my response you will realise that I made no such claims that you are accusing me of.  The only dinosaur fossil that I said was with obvious feathers was the Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, and this was discovered to be a fraud.  So don't get excited that I acknowledged that any dinosaur had feathers, what they have are scales.  Sinosauropteryx are filamentous and sometimes have interlaced structures which bears no obvious resemblance to feathers.  They have been said to appear like connective tissue fibres (collagen) found in the deep dermal layer of the skin.  So, I don't know where you got the idea that I claimed that they are dinosaurs with feathers. 

First, you claim you didn't make the "such claims that [I am] accusing of". Um, you do realise that I quoted you directly? Further to that, I threaded the immediate history of our discussion so you could follow exactly what you wrote. Here is the complete quote of the section ro which you are responding:


Now if you didn't mistake archeoraptor for archeopteryx, why was continuously attacking archeoraptor your major response to particularly the subject of archeopteryx and Sinosauropteryx?

Second, since I already addressed the archeoraptor here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-304357.96.html#msg4295818 we can move on from how it's a "fraud", etc. You'll also notice that in that post I address how you mistook archeopteryx for archeoraptor.

Thirdly, yes, there is a difference between the feathers of birds from the scales of other modern reptiles, and while there is a link between the two, the issue isn't so much if scales can turn to feathers but why dinosaurs - for example sinosauropteryx and Therizinosaurus - had feathers. Unmistakable feathers. You claim that what Sinosauropteryx had wasn't feathers, but scales. The issue then becomes: if they were scales, why filaments hollow and arranged along its body in a way that is suggestive of feathers? In truth, there is no real answer to that, because it is in fact primitive feathers that dotted the body of the Sinosauropteryx.  

Finally, learn to read - I didn't say you said Sinosauropteryx was a dinosaur with feathers.

P.S. Would it be overkill to introduce mammals with scales, like the pangolin (http://www.pangolin.com/PangolinPic.html)?

The fact that Archaeopteryx have teeth, fingers on its wings and a long tail does not prove that they are reptilian ancestry.  While there are no living birds with teeth, other fossilised birds such as Hesperornis also had teeth.  Some modern birds, such as the ostrich, have fingers on their wings, and the juvenile hoatzin(a south American bird) has well developed fingers and toes with which it can climb trees

You're right those things don't show the dinosaurian aspect of archeopteryx. Instead, it's the presence of these in a "bird" that show it is a transitional:

1. The lack of a bill
2. The presence of socketed teeth
3. Nostrils far forward on the snout
4. The vertebrae of the trunk are free, not fused
5. The presence of abdominal ribs
6. The ribs do not articulate with the sternum
7. A shoulder joint that faces downward
8. A mobile wrist, unfused digits and claws
9. A long tail with free vertebrae
10. Solid bones
11 A skull that bears sutures.

Incidentally, you hit on a good point with the presence of finger claws in some modern birds - ostriches, emus, hoatzin chicks. That's a vestige from their evolution history. One that is a homologous feature that indicates shared ancestry with dinosaurs.

You didn't mention all those. I'll address them individually:

Yes, there dissimilarities between scales and feathers. However, several species of dinosaurs had feathers. I have given two examples: Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx zoui. I can give more if required. We are thus left very few options: that those dinosaurs had feathers, and therefore it isn't a difference between birds and dinosaurs, or they weren't dinosaurs, but birds. The latter is absurd, and the former the most parsimonious. And before you say those dinosaurs didn't have feathers, consider that the feathers of the Caudipteryx zoui, especially, was plume like, hollow and in the same formation as that on modern birds.

Sinosauropteryx are dinosaurs while Caudipteryx are birds, that was a good try.  In actual fact feathers are profoundly different from scales in both their structure and growth.  Feathers grow individually from tube-like follicles similar to hair follicles.  Reptile scales, on the other hand, are not individual follicular structures but rather compromise a continuous sheet on the surface of the body.  While feathers grow and are shed individually, scales grow and are shed as an entire sheet of skin.

There is definitely no evidence of any transitional fossil that can be called "sceathers" that is, reptile scales evolving into feathers, knowing that these incredibly complex structure bears not the slightest resemblance to the relatively simple reptilian scale.

If Caudipteryx was a bird, then how do you explain specifically non-avian dionsaurian traits like, and I quote from a written critique: "forward-pointing pubis, and the contact in its ankle joint between the calcanaeum and the fibula." It would make little sense for a bird to have those features that early dinosaurs had except it was somehow related to dinosaurs. In fact, given that it had more dinosaurian features than avian, it's more likely it was a dinosaur.

I've addressed the issue of scales and sino~ above. I should also mention at this point that scales may be generally different from feathers, but scutes are not.

By the way, here's another feathered dinosaur: Therizinosaurus

Second, lungs. The shape and structure of the chest cavities of several dinosaurs indicate that they had the same lungs as aves.

One of the most distinctive features of birds is their lungs.  Bird lungs are small in size and nearly rigid, but they are, nevertheless, highly efficient to meet the high metabolic needs of flight.  Birds do not have diaphrams but reptiles do.  If theropod dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, one might expect to find evidence of an avian type lung in such dinosaurs.  While fossils generally don't preserve soft tissue as lungs, Sinosauropteryx fossil has been found in which the outline of the visceral cavity has been well preserved.  The evidence clearly indicates that this theropod had a lung and respiratory mechanics similar to that of a crocodile and not a bird.  Specifically, there was evidence of a diaphram like muscle separating the lung from the liver, this you will see in modern crocodiles but not in birds.

Nonsense. My words were: some species of dinosaurs had avian lungs, and this is evidenced in the fossils of several dinosaurs. Here's a picture of a comparison featured on pharyngula:



From here:http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/dinosaur_lungs.php

PZ goes in more details on the lungs of dinosaurs, but the point I wanted to bring here was the similarity between the lungs of several species of dinosaur and modern birds.

Finally, um yeah, Sinosauropteryx was a non-avian dinosaur. No shit! Sinosauropteryx wasn't an example of a dinosaur with avian lungs, but of a dinosaur with feathers.

Finally, different dinosaur speices had many different stances. You have no idea what you are talking about here. "Lizard-hipped" Seriosuly? Geez!

I must say that you are the one who's got no clue of the two major groups of dinosaurs based on the structure of their hips (pelvic bones): the lizard hipped dinosaurs and the bird hipped dinosaurs.  The main difference between the two hip structures is that the pubic bone of the bird hipped dinosaurs is directed toward the rear (as in birds) rather entirely to the front (as in mammals and reptiles).  In most other respects, the bird hipped dinosaurs are even less bird-like than the lizard-hipped, bipedal dinosaurs, such as the theropods.  This point is rarely emphasised in popular accounts of dinosaur/bird evolution for obvious reasons.

Mea Culpa. However, you're still wrong because it would appear that birds are "lizard-hipped". Go figure!

No, you weren't expecting anything, you wanted the question I asked to be drowned under a barrage of non-aligning question. I'll do you a solid. I'll answer your question separately since you mad an attempt at mine. You have to try again, though, because you got it wrong.

You have shown that you ai'nt got a clue on the differences above.

Yet again, more nonsense. I have done nothing but show knowledge on most of the issues raised.

Wanna try again, because so far species of dinosaurs possess the same type of traits you mentioned as birds

The evidence above proves otherwise.
http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaurs-vs-birds-fossils-dont-lie/

Except it doesn't. So far we have dinosaurs with feathers; others that are bird-hipped and others that have avian lungs. Now, unless you're they were all birds you haven't told us what differentiates dinosaurs from birds.

Wonderful rebuttal. How about no, you put up the arguments that you think refutes what all I wrote instead. Don't just foist links at me.

Again see the rebuttal above and learn from it.  Feathers have long been considered to be unique to birds.  Certainly all living birds have feathers of some kind, while no living creature other than birds have feathers has been found to have a cutaneou appendage even remotely similar to a feather.  Dinosaurs are reptiles, and so it is not surprising that fossil evidence has shown them to have a scaly skin typical of reptiles.  For example, a recently discovered well preserved specimen of Compsognathus (a small theropod dinosaur of the type believed to be most closely related to birds) showed unmistakable evidence of scales but alas -- no feathers.

U.B. Gohlich and L.M. Chiappe, A new carnivorous dinosaur from the late Jurassic Solnhofen archipelago, Nature 440:329-332,2006.

Ugh, don't obfuscate. What the fossil evidence has shown is that several species of dinosaur had feathers too. I have given three examples so far.

Yeah, that's what I thought. It's useless.

This is what Isaac Newton said: "Atheism is so senseless"   

That's nice. Still doesn't change the fact that so far Creationism, especially as you've described it and been unable to provide ways that it can be tested and potentially falsified, is useless.