I believe in Creation ...and Evolution

[painted wolf]

ok first point... they didn't find 'blood' they found blood cells.... cells can be preserved.:banghead3
you should try to read the actual paper before you dismiss the find.

second

They said they found proof it had feathers but it didn't and is now presumed it was a digging dinosaur like a mole.

to borrow a phrase... what the duce?
where the heck did you hear that and can you give a source for it?:areyoucra

third I'm going to guess that the definiton of kind that you are using is going to be this one:
A group of individuals linked by traits held in common.

Would that be a correct definition for the use of the word kind in your statement "animals can only reproduce after thier 'kind' "?

thirdly feathers have been found on more than a hundred specimins from dozens of species of dinosaur.
some examples include:
Sinornithosaurus (adults and juviniles)
Dilong
Sinosauropteryx
Protoarchyaeopteryx
Caudipteryx
Shuvuuia
Beipiaosaurus
Microraptor
Just to name a few.:162:

so please define the 'bird' kind for me... I seem to be confused as to what makes this a bird:
http://www.nhm.org/journey/prehist/birds/archaeopteryx.html
but this not a bird
http://www.sdnhm.org/media/images/cau_fossil.jpg

wa:do

 

[Passerbye]

Like I said before: if you know of a way they can be preserved over millions of years please share. I have not heard of one.
That is the definition of kind I was thinking of.
I have not seen the "birds" when they were alive, so I don't know what they are. If it's dead, it is hard to tell at times if you don't have something living to compare it to. If a dinosaur had feathers then it could have just been a dinosaur with feathers. It means the same as, dogs have teeth and so do dinosaurs. I was simply making a comment on a disproved "missing link" that I have seen still being taught in school.

In 1996, newspapers reported a find in China of a fossil that supposedly had feathers. Some of the media reports claimed that, if it were confermed, it would be "irrefutable evidence that today's birds evolved from dinosaurs." One scientist stated "you can't come to any conclusions other than that they are feathers." However, in 1997 the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia sent four leading scientists to investigate this find. They concluded they were not feathers. The media report steted, concerning one of the scientists, "He said he saw 'hair-like' structures -not hairs- that could have supported a frill or crest, like those on iguanas.
No sooner had this report appeared than another media report claimed that 20 fragments of bones of a reptile found in South America showed dinosaurs were related to birds!
Birds are warm-blooded and reptiles are cold-blooded, but evolutionists who believe dinosaurs evolved into birds would like to see dinosaurs as warm-blooded to support their theory. But Dr. Larry Martin of the University of Kansas opposes this idea:
Recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones was "characteristic of cold-blooded animals," Martin said. "So we're back to cold-blooded dinosaurs"

The Revised & Expanded Answers Book by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland
This is just one example of a discredited dino-bird. The referance to the one discredited as a digging dinosaur was a different one. I will try to find the source. Regardless, if a dinosaur has been found to have feathers the only thing that means is that it had feathers. I'm not against them having feathers. If a spider can have hair, a reptile can have feathers.
Oh, and in the second picture I don't hardly even know what I am looking at. It could be a bird. I don't know. I didn't put the thing back together.

 

[Passerbye]

Oh, and why do people name dinosaurs almost unpronouncable names. Would you ever name your child Sinornithosaurus?

"Hey Pam!!!" yelled Georgenopolis, "Sinornithosaurus's diaper needs changing!"
"Get Protoarchyaeopteryx to do it, and tell him he needs to stop playing games with Caudipteryx and get to his homework." replied Pam.

A bit ridiculous, don't you think?
Name it Frex, or Bob, or something. Call it a flicken for all I care, just make it easy to pronounce at least!

 

[Fatmop]

Why name your kid Brutus, Cassius, or Julius?

 

[Fatmop]

Passerbye, you didn't answer painted wolf's questions about the multiple fossils and 'missing links' scientists have found. ID proponents seem to like taking small bits of information and extrapolating wildly - like Steve's 'design detection.' I think a little scientific extrapolation on the part of evolution theorists is not unwarranted.

 

[Passerbye]

I do not see the question I missed answering. What was it?

 

[Passerbye]

At least Brutus, Cassius, and Julius can be pronounced. They aren't long and bothersome. Protoarchyaeopteryx may be descriptive to someone who can understand it but Protopy would be easier to pronounce.

 

[Pah]

I do not see the question I missed answering. What was it?

From post #41,

this threadto borrow a phrase... what the duce?
where the heck did you hear that and can you give a source for it?

third I'm going to guess that the definiton of kind that you are using is going to be this one:
A group of individuals linked by traits held in common.

Would that be a correct definition for the use of the word kind in your statement "animals can only reproduce after thier 'kind' "?

thirdly feathers have been found on more than a hundred specimins from dozens of species of dinosaur.
some examples include:
Sinornithosaurus (adults and juviniles)
Dilong
Sinosauropteryx
Protoarchyaeopteryx
Caudipteryx
Shuvuuia
Beipiaosaurus
Microraptor
Just to name a few.

so please define the 'bird' kind for me... I seem to be confused as to what makes this a bird:
http://www.nhm.org/journey/prehist/...haeopteryx.html
but this not a bird
http://www.sdnhm.org/media/images/cau_fossil.jpg

 

[Passerbye]

The old definition of a bird kind would include a bat but that is now considered a mammal. In the past, something that flew or had feathers was a bird. If it looks like a bird to me, it's a bird to me. Scientist would say a bird must fall into some catagories such as having feathers and such. As far as I'm conserned, both pictures could be of birds, or dinosaurs, or somewhere between the two, that doesn't mean that evolution played a part. Man defined what a bird is, and what a mammal is, and a reptile, dinosaur, and so on. The only way the bible clasifies things is: creatures of the air, of the sea, of the land, has a split foot, chews the cud, and so on. If something falls into more than one man-made catagory that makes no difference to me.

 

[Pah]

The old definition of a bird kind would include a bat but that is now considered a mammal. In the past, something that flew or had feathers was a bird. If it looks like a bird to me, it's a bird to me. Scientist would say a bird must fall into some catagories such as having feathers and such. As far as I'm conserned, both pictures could be of birds, or dinosaurs, or somewhere between the two, that doesn't mean that evolution played a part. Man defined what a bird is, and what a mammal is, and a reptile, dinosaur, and so on. The only way the bible clasifies things is: creatures of the air, of the sea, of the land, has a split foot, chews the cud, and so on. If something falls into more than one man-made catagory that makes no difference to me.

It seems you disregard the obvious differences between species. I guess I could do that with Christianity and include all the differing faults of some as indicative of the whole "kind". That would allow me to say "Christians do not believe in the human aspect of Jesus". or "Christians support homsexuality". You have an untenable position.

 

[painted wolf]

A bat isn't considered a mammal it IS a mammal.
bats don't lay eggs, they produce milk, they have fur and so on...

It isn't just an arbitrary thing... this mammal term.

as for dinosaur names they are discriptions of the animals so you know exactly what you are talking about.
Sinornithosaurus = chinese bird lizard
Dilong = emperor dragon
Sinosauropteryx =(SIEN-o-sawr-OP-ter-iks)= Chinese lizard with feathers
Protoarchyaeopteryx= before Archyaeopteryx (before anchienct wing)
Caudipteryx= (caw-dip-te-rix ) = tail feathers
Shuvuuia=(shu-VOO-ee-a) = bird
Beipiaosaurus =(bay-peow-SAWR-us[size=+1][size=+1]) [/size][/size]= lizard from Beipiao
Microraptor = small raptor (small bird of prey)

far more eloquent and discriptive than Bob.

recent reserch has shown that dinosaur bones are like those of birds. Not reptiles.
http://www.smm.org/research/Paleontology/histology/

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

If something falls into more than one man-made catagory that makes no difference to me.

so the fact that dinosaurs fit both the bird and the reptile catagory makes no difference?
The platypus fits mammal and reptile.
Australopithicus fits both ape and human...

sounds like you should have no problem with evolution then. You should look into modern phylogeny and cladistics. No messy man made classifications just a nice transition from one to the next 'kind'.

wa:do

 

[Passerbye]

Carolus Linnaeus (or Carl Linné) first introduced classifying things into such categories in 1749. Go back a few thousand years and I bet people would agree with me. Yes, a bat is a mammal, by the technical definitions, but God doesn't say he created the Mammals by their kind and the birds by their kind and the fish and reptiles by their kind. It states, and I quote "Let the water teem with living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." Now, you may say, "A bat! Oh, we discovered that it's a mammal so your god lied to us and we are going to laugh at you" but the truth is a bat was defined as a bird because it flew. If God wanted to create it on the 5th day he could and how would I object. He just wanted to fill the sky with flying things. The word for bird was a general term when the bible was written. It means something that flew in Genesis and in the classification of things not to eat it means basically the same.

 

[Passerbye]

"Christians do not believe in the human aspect of Jesus". or "Christians support homsexuality

Where did you get that non-sense? How do we get lumped into such a thing? I don't see how I stated that.

Painted Wolf, I read that page you pointed out and what does it say on that subject? It talks about the bones of dinosaurs but it doesn't compare them to birds.

The descriptions in the Bible were so that everyone could understand what they can eat. It contained descriptions of all the animals that they can eat. Those that chew the cud, and have a spit hoof can be eaten. If it just chews the cud, no; If it just has a split hoof, no; If it is pulled from the water and has no scales, no; and so on. What "problems" can you find with this method of telling people what to eat and what not to eat?

 

[painted wolf]

these should prove more helpful now that you have read the basics.
http://bio.fsu.edu/~gerick/dinogrowth.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/879956.stm

I also suggest that you check out the "Birds from reptiles" thread for more.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7696&page=1&pp=10

I have no problem with food taboos what I have a problem with is basing a 'scientific' classification on them... 'bird kind'.. creeping thing kind... so on.
saying that evolution cant extist because the bible says god made things 'after thier kind' is going to make people wonder about just what the heck a 'kind' is.

wa:do

 

[Passerbye]

"Recently it has been contended that the presence of growth lines in dinosaur bones (a typically reptilian attribute marking cessations in growth during development) coupled with a highly vascularized matrix like birds and mammals indicated rates intermediate between reptiles and birds/mammals."

"No dinosaurs achieved growth rates like those of living altricial birds (e.g. passerines --perching birds)scaled to similar size"

"Nevertheless their rates as a whole were not akin to those of living marsupial mammals precocial birds, eutherian mammals, or altricial birds"

"Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs [meat eating dinosaurs] that were close relatives to the velociraptors seen in Jurassic park"

"It appears the birds attained their rapid growth rates after birds diverged from non-avian dinosaurs"

"It is amazing how rapid the giant sauropod dinosaurs were growing. Clearly these were the fastest growing terrestrial animals ever."

The evolution of avian growth rates appears to have been a stepwise process punctuated by the following events: an increase in rates beyond the primitive reptilian condition that occurred with the evolution of the dinosaurs, a further increase to rapid precocial levels after birds diverged from the dinosaurs, and finally, extremely rapid rates were achieved in some birds with the evolution of altriciality

coelurosaurs were organised in the same way as they are in birds today.

The researchers also found evidence that bundles of collagen fibres - which bind bone minerals - have the same irregular structure in both birds and coelurosaurs.

A team of Russian and American researchers claimed to have found feathers on the fossil of A small, lizard-like creature that lived 220 million years ago - about the same time that dinosaurs began to roam the Earth - and 75 million years before the first known bird.
Longisquama insignis was an archosaur, part of a group of reptiles from which dinosaurs, birds and crocodiles (birds' closest living relatives) are descended.


The researchers questioned whether feathers could have evolved twice and suggested bird-like creatures may have evolved at the same time as, or even before, the dinosaurs.

Now, the unique links between the bone structure of modern birds and coelurosaurs appear to push the arguments over bird evolution back towards the dinosaurs.

It doesn't necessarily prove that birds had to derive from dinosaurs. At least from the data we've seen that appears to be a logical conclusion, but there's still plenty of room for argument."

This information is interesting. It still uses the shaky dating methods and at times puts birds and reptiles together, when to evolution is a no-no, but to me it's a big YES-YES. Now, The bone information does say that there are things in both that suggest that they came from each other, but just because they have same features in common doesn't mean they came from each other. Every bird, reptile, and mammal has a heart, blood, bones (as far as I know, but I could be wrong). Biological similarities suggest both mutation and the same creator. This argument doesn't hold up if we both agree that they can look as similar as they want.

The term kind is used to describe things that have DNA similar enough to mate and produce offspring. Now if you look at it from a biblical point of view you are not to mate different “kinds”. The term kind is used twice in the Bible, Genesis and the rules for the Jews basically. If you look at it from my point of view, I don’t believe in making new information but I do believe that groups of the same type can separate into herds going in different directions and after an amount of time of living in separate places can become far enough apart in DNA from mistakes as to not allow proper crossbreeding. The rules for no mating with other types of people were put into effect probably, from my standpoint, after the DNA of all the creatures had too many errors in it, including humans. The kinds God created, according to what I have seen, have degraded and formed boundaries between each other. DNA falls apart over time, just like man, and animals, and the earth, and everything made by man or otherwise. The earth isn’t the self-perpetuating environment evolutionists see it as, at least from my standpoint. It will die. Okay… back to “kinds”. Kinds implies genetic separation. It means that a platypus shouldn’t mate with a beaver, and a donkey and a horse shouldn’t mate either. Either it doesn’t work or it ends up with debilitated children. Kind is a way of putting a boundary between things. In order to have a kind you must have a way to decide what differences don’t work together. A kind is defined by the context. Kind in Genesis was saying creatures that do mate with each other naturally. Kind in Exodus refers to not mating animals that don’t naturally mate with each other. Kind in the Bible is referring to mating naturally.

 

[painted wolf]

If you look at it from my point of view, I don’t believe in making new information but I do believe that groups of the same type can separate into herds going in different directions and after an amount of time of living in separate places can become far enough apart in DNA from mistakes as to not allow proper crossbreeding.

isn't that evolution?
one group splits up into two new ones.... the first after centuries of not breeding with 'outsiders' becomes the horse...the second becomes the donkey.

One group becomes the early bird... the second becomes the flightless dino-birds like the Dromeosaurs.

The early bird splits into two groups again... one becomes the passerines (sparrows and such) the other becomes the raptors (hawks and such).

wa:do

 

[Passerbye]

Difference is that although they would differ from each other they would still be basically related. They wouldn’t get more complex, they would get less. It’s not a process that requires millions of years, it can happen anytime. Most of the time the creatures would still is able to produce successful offspring, such as a liger, but not always. It might not always be a great result, but there is usually a way to do such. Although the basic “kinds” have spread out over the years they are still there, I just think they separated too much and thus now get to be their own kind in a way. I don't think something as different as dinosaurs and birds could have had the same ancestor. They are too different. But then again... I have never seen if they could have offspring together either.

 

[Yerda]

I don't think something as different as dinosaurs and birds could have had the same ancestor. They are too different.

The argument from personal incredulity gets nobody anywhere. The evidence is there, if you choose to disregard it fine.

 

[Passerbye]

I saw the information, I regarded none of it as wrong, I simply don't see the 100% proof that was shown. Did I miss something?