Do you think the fossil of the archaeopteryx is a genuine indication of a part bird, part lizard "missing link" ?
If archaeopteryx is questionable as a valid evidence of a transitional life between lizard and bird, then where else can we find evidence?
It was Darwin who said not finding transitional fossils would be a real problem to his theory. He said so himself -
When Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859, he conceded that "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory" was that the fossil record failed to back up his evolutionary hypothesis.
"Why," he asked, "if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" He attributed the problem to the fossil record being incomplete and predicted that future discoveries would vindicate his theory
[From The Case for a Creator - chapter three - Doubts about Darwinism Lee Strobel, pgs. 55,56, Zondervan ]
Does there exist a non-forged, non-fabricated fossil of a lizard to bird transitional animal ? I know eager people would LIKE to find a genuine example.
But is there one, of , say, a reptile to bird transitional animal fossil ?
@kellyjay saidSo what then is your explanation for your own assertion that species appear 'suddenly' in the fossil record and then disappear? How do you think they got there and where do you think they went? Please try to give a straightforward answer, instead of wrapping it up in your barely decipherable English.
Your way or the highway, false choices.
@kellyjay saidI'm having some trouble working out what on earth you're talking about here, but I think you're saying that your citing the scriptures as evidence of a god does not mean that it's the truth. In which case you seem to have changed your mind, and I agree with you.
You don't think things through very well. Evidence is evidence, the weakness or strength of it will prove, not move the needle at all, or disprove something. Suggesting there is evidence, doesn't mean something is true, only that there is evidence, something to think about in terms of whatever it is we are looking at.
You want to suggest that every time evidence is presen ...[text shortened]... , and hopefully truth is the end result, at least to a place of reasonable doubt or some other line.
If we apply your logic to the fossil record, then when we find a fossil, then that fossil is evidence that the creature, whatever it is, was once alive. That is truth, it is a fact, which can be proved by the existence of the fossil. Otherwise what other explanation or reason can you give for the fossil being there? Are you in fact denying the existence of fossils, or that the fossilized animal/plant or whatever once lived?
Do try to give a straight and comprehensible answer.
@kellyjay saidPerfectly serious. It is the study of 'countless' fossils from various stages that speak to us from the past.
You are not serious?
@indonesia-phil saidWell lets see, they died where they were and were buried in such a way a fossil appeared instead of having the body break down to the point of disappearing.
So what then is your explanation for your own assertion that species appear 'suddenly' in the fossil record and then disappear? How do you think they got there and where do you think they went? Please try to give a straightforward answer, instead of wrapping it up in your barely decipherable English.
The sudden appearance and disappearance of all of the lifeforms do not show a slow change over time, if it did the process of that would still be going on today and there would be several not quite the same life all around us for each lifeform today. Instead we see very distinct life now, as we do in the fossils.
@indonesia-phil saidNo one can say there isn't evidence for creation when it is all around them, Bible included. The universe is evidence, life is evidence and fossils are rocks and can be used as evidence. We assign what we think is true about fossils, are we right or wrong? The points that are made about them are varied and since they are all about what people think occurred in the distant past there is no way to disprove these theories.
I'm having some trouble working out what on earth you're talking about here, but I think you're saying that your citing the scriptures as evidence of a god does not mean that it's the truth. In which case you seem to have changed your mind, and I agree with you.
If we apply your logic to the fossil record, then when we find a fossil, then that fossil is evidence t ...[text shortened]... silized animal/plant or whatever once lived?
Do try to give a straight and comprehensible answer.
Not saying there are not fossils, but saying they are there does not mean what people suggest happened, or why they are there proves anything. Just because someone points to them and says they prove evolution doesn't mean it does. As I said the process if were true would still be going on today, so where are all of the lifeforms that are not quite the most advanced model? Slow changes says there should be a long line of them, nothing dies off after a small change within it just because there was one.
3 edits
@ghost-of-a-duke saidNo they are not talking to you trust me. What they say is nothing! They show life was covered up and turned to fossils because the conditions were right, if not they would have been eaten, they would have turned to dust. They show up fully and partly formed, some people look at the small parts as they find, put them together in such a way that forms something. They then take what they MADE share their findings, and now we have a new fossil creature for the books. They go about talking about what it could have looked like, what it may have ate, when it walked the planet. These strings of findings are counted as evidence, when the pieces of fossils may really have been three different creatures who died together and were buried. There is no way they could know that, just by looking at small pieces of rocks. There is NOTHING we really know about them outside they are there, and were once alive, so everything else is the imagination of man.
Perfectly serious. It is the study of 'countless' fossils from various stages that speak to us from the past.
@KellyJay
Archaeopteryx was discovered in Germany in 1861. It possesses a combination of traits that clearly place it as a transitional form between non-avian dinosaurs and birds. Its similarities to non-avian dinosaurs include a long feathered tail and small teeth. Unlike non-avian dinosaurs however, Archaeopteryx also has flight feathers and wings, just like a modern bird. The discovery of the furcula, or fused clavicle bone, in Archaeopteryx was a firm confirmation of the relationship between birds and dinosaurs, as they are the only two groups to have this anatomical feature.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#60e2db12d8db
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI'll read it when I have some time, but this is a FACT for you not someone's opinion?
@KellyJay
Archaeopteryx was discovered in Germany in 1861. It possesses a combination of traits that clearly place it as a transitional form between non-avian dinosaurs and birds. Its similarities to non-avian dinosaurs include a long feathered tail and small teeth. Unlike non-avian dinosaurs however, Archaeopteryx also has flight feathers and wings, just like a mo ...[text shortened]... tes/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#60e2db12d8db
We see similarities between life today, it doesn't mean one is related to another.
4 edits
Archaeopteryx was discovered in Germany in 1861. It possesses a combination of traits that clearly place it as a transitional form between non-avian dinosaurs and birds. Its similarities to non-avian dinosaurs include a long feathered tail and small teeth. Unlike non-avian dinosaurs however, Archaeopteryx also has flight feathers and wings, just like a modern bird. The discovery of the furcula, or fused clavicle bone, in Archaeopteryx was a firm confirmation of the relationship between birds and dinosaurs, as they are the only two groups to have this anatomical feature.
Are you sure that it was not JUST a bird ?
Some argue that it is a bird and not half bird / half reptile.
And the reptiles that paleontologists believe are more like birds date millions of years AFTER the dating of archaeopteryx .
Wouldn't we expect that they would date millions of years BEFORE the estimated date of archaepteryx if a progression from reptile to bird is being discovered?
Jonathan Wells ( author of The Icons of Evolution,) being asked if archaepteryx was part reptile / part bird:
"No, not even close ... It's a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in may important ways - their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. It's a bird, that's clear - not part bird and part reptile."
"So here we have we have archaeopteryx, which is undeniably a bird, and yet the fossils that look like the reptilian ancestors of birds occur tens of millions of years later in the fossil record. The missing link is still missing! Now evolutionists are stuck looking for another theoretical ancestor to try to fill the gaps, but it hasn't been found."
According to Jonathan Wells Paleontlogists pretty much agree that Archaeopteryx is a bird with too many structural differences to be a part reptile / part bird. It has been designated by Larry Martin from the University of Kansas as a member of extinct birds.
Evolutionists Pierre Lecomte du Nouy has written in agreement with Martin -
We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between two classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characteristics belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."
Now you must also realize that FRAUDS of feathered dinosaurs have been detected and exposed in both Arizona and in China by examiners who showed how two characteristics were glued together.
Zeolots for evolution do go to these extreme fraudulent measures at times. It confuses things.
"the curator of birds at the Smithsonian charged the Society had become aligned with 'zealous scientists' who were 'highly biased proselytizers of the faith' that birds evolved from dinosaurs."
Fakes are coming out of these fossil beds all the time according to Wells.
We have to separate the frauds, fakes, and tricks from the genuine fossils to get at making better interpretations.
@sonship saidOf course, Christians are never guilty of fraud themselves.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
[quote] Archaeopteryx was discovered in Germany in 1861. It possesses a combination of traits that clearly place it as a transitional form between non-avian dinosaurs and birds. Its similarities to non-avian dinosaurs include a long feathered tail and small teeth. Unlike non-avian dinosaurs however, Archaeopteryx also has flight feathers and wings, just li ...[text shortened]... rate the frauds, fakes, and tricks from the genuine fossils to get at making better interpretations.
Cough cough, the Shroud of Turin.
1 edit
Of course, Christians are never guilty of fraud themselves.
Cough cough, the Shroud of Turin.
Now, I didn't say that.
Far from it.
It is a human nature thing. And it is often a green thing (money). "Oh, you want to find a piece of the wooden cross? Here we have just the item for you for a small fee to see it."
"Oh, you need to find a dinosaur to bird fossil to prove evolution? Why we found just the fossil you need. Make me an offer ? "
In both cases, some shenanigans put the whole matter in a bad reputation.
@sonship saidFossils are found the world over.
@Ghost-of-a-DukeOf course, Christians are never guilty of fraud themselves.
Cough cough, the Shroud of Turin.
Now, I didn't say that.
Far from it.
It is a human nature thing. "Oh, you want to find a piece of the wooden cross? Here we have just the item for you for a small fee to see it."
"Oh, you need to find a dinosaur to bird fo ...[text shortened]... an offer ? "
In both cases, some shenanigans put the whole matter in a bad reputation.
You see the difference?
Fossils are found the world over.
You see the difference?
Not really. Human nature and the love of money from the gullible is found the world over also.
Fakes are not tied to a geographic area.
Other cities claim to have the chalice.
Somewhere else they claim to have the Shroud of Turin.
Somewhere else they claim to have a nail from the cross, etc. etc.
@sonship saidAlas, those are the pitfalls of religion. A mind open to the superstitious and fanciful is invariably closed to the product of scientific discovery.
@Ghost-of-a-DukeFossils are found the world over.
You see the difference?
Not really. Human nature and the love of money from the gullible is found the world over also.
Fakes are not tied to a geographic area.
Other cities claim to have the chalice.
Somewhere else they claim to have the Shroud of Turin.
Somewhere else they claim to have a nail from the cross, etc. etc.