Mr Hinds Penguins

This was getting lost in the thread, so i started a new one. This is where we're up to -

The point i'm trying to make is how can you call a penguin a bird if you believe it and none of it's ancestors could fly? Surely the whole point of it being a bird is that it can/could fly!!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
This was getting lost in the thread, so i started a new one. This is where we're up to -

The point i'm trying to make is how can you call a penguin a bird if you believe it and none of it's ancestors could fly? Surely the whole point of it being a bird is that it [b]can/could fly!![/b]

It's hard to reason with an unarmed opponent!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
This was getting lost in the thread, so i started a new one. This is where we're up to -

The point i'm trying to make is how can you call a penguin a bird if you believe it and none of it's ancestors could fly? Surely the whole point of it being a bird is that it [b]can/could fly!![/b]

did he say that? that something that flies is a bird?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
This was getting lost in the thread, so i started a new one. This is where we're up to -

The point i'm trying to make is how can you call a penguin a bird if you believe it and none of it's ancestors could fly? Surely the whole point of it being a bird is that it [b]can/could fly!![/b]

Most birds can fly. The Ostrich is an exception.
I may be wrong but the Penguin looks like a bird,
but like the Ostrich it can not fly.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Most birds can fly. The Ostrich is an exception.
I may be wrong but the Penguin looks like a bird,
but like the Ostrich it can not fly.

What about bats?

Originally posted by FMF
What about bats?

See this link to wikipedia on bats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
did he say that? that something that flies is a bird?

Leviticus 11

13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Most birds can fly. The Ostrich is an exception.
I may be wrong but the Penguin looks like a bird,
but like the Ostrich it can not fly.

Let's recap, this was my initial question -

Secondly, do you accept penguins evolved from a bird that could fly?

You replied no.

If a penguin did not evolve from a bird that could fly, and the penguin can not fly. Could you really call it a bird? What 'kind' is that?

Secondly, there are around 40 different species of birds that cannot fly. They could once but lost the ability, incidentally a large proportion of flightless birds are found in New Zealand. There are also no large predators in New Zealand.

Originally posted by FMF
What about bats?

Bats are Mammals. That is they give live birth and have milk. Birds lay eggs and do not provide milk. Also, chickens, turkeys, emus and others can't fly. By the way, some insects can fly and some can't. Ants and wasps are fairly closely related.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Let's recap, this was my initial question -

Secondly, do you accept penguins evolved from a bird that could fly?

You replied no.

If a penguin did not evolve from a bird that could fly, and the penguin can not fly. Could you really call it a bird? What 'kind' is that?

Secondly, there are around 40 different species of birds tha ...[text shortened]... flightless birds are found in New Zealand. There are also no large predators in New Zealand.

I think the Penguin was created by God, therefore no evolution
from a bird that could fly is necessary. If you don't want to call
it a bird then just call it a Penguin. I am happy withm that.

The fact that you say there are around 40 different species of birds
that can not fly does not prove they are not birds or that God did
not create them, in my humble opinion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think the Penguin was created by God, therefore no evolution
from a bird that could fly is necessary. If you don't want to call
it a bird then just call it a Penguin. I am happy withm that.

The fact that you say there are around 40 different species of birds
that can not fly does not prove they are not birds or that God did
not create them, in my humble opinion.

Dear Professor Hinds,

If you will google Penquin Evolution, There are numerous articles showing how penquins have evolved over millions of years. My question is, should I go with your beliefs which are locked in place based on what men thought long ago and denies all evidence that has been gathered since then, or the evidence in the geological record that has been gathered by scientists whose only objectives are to learn the truth about nature and who have gathered evidence which will be (and has been) corrected if it is found to be wrong.

If there is a god (which I doubt), he gave you a brain. You should use it by showing some intellectual curiosity.

Originally posted by 667joe
Dear Professor Hinds,

If you will google Penquin Evolution, There are numerous articles showing how penquins have evolved over millions of years. My question is, should I go with your beliefs which are locked in place based on what men thought long ago and denies all evidence that has been gathered since then, or the evidence in the geological record ...[text shortened]... hich I doubt), he gave you a brain. You should use it by showing some intellectual curiosity.

I like the title Professor in front of my name; but, I must be honest,
I don't have enough education to deserve the title. I only have an
Associate in Arts degree.

Don't you realize the people making up this stuff about evolution
of Penguins over millions of years are not old enough to know
such things. They may be evolutionist, but they do not come about
this information using science and the scientific method. They
take pieces of a puzzle and shape them so they fit the picture
that they want to produce. They do a lot of guessing and assume
to much. To assume makes an ass out of u and me.

My beliefs in the creation comes from an old source that has never
been proved wrong. Many have tried and some have come away
believing the Holy Bible is what it is reported to be, the Book of
Truth, the Word of God. You seem to think that the only objective
of all scientists is to learn the truth. It has been shown that some
scientist (geologist) have falsified discoveries so that they could
continue to receive more grant money. They have a need to
discover things that agree with the accepted ideas of the time,
which is much more likely to be accepted without question. The
evolutionist deny evidence that disagree with their notions of how
and when things happen. But you seem to think they are as pure
and white as the driven snow. So believe what you want. I will
continue to believe in the Book of Truth, the Holy Bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I like the title Professor in front of my name; but, I must be honest,
I don't have enough education to deserve the title. I only have an
Associate in Arts degree.

Don't you realize the people making up this stuff about evolution
of Penguins over millions of years are not old enough to know
such things. They may be evolutionist, but they do not come ...[text shortened]... So believe what you want. I will
continue to believe in the Book of Truth, the Holy Bible.

Of course not all scientists are honest, but if a scientists says something that is not true, then it will come out when other scientists try to reproduce the 1sts scientist's work. If it's not reproducible, it will then be deemed false. In this way, science is self correcting. The bible says the virgin birth and resurrection occurred, but these results have never appeared in the scientific literature so to have a high level of confidence that they occurred is not prudent. In other words, science takes something as fact if results are reproducible. With the bible, you merely hope something is fact because of your feelings even if evidence suggests the contrary. Religion blinds people to the truth and therefore it is not good or even benign........it's actually harmful!..... and it has clearly been harmful to you.

Originally posted by 667joe
Bats are Mammals. That is they give live birth and have milk. Birds lay eggs and do not provide milk. Also, chickens, turkeys, emus and others can't fly. By the way, some insects can fly and some can't. Ants and wasps are fairly closely related.

My point, exactly.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
This was getting lost in the thread, so i started a new one. This is where we're up to -

The point i'm trying to make is how can you call a penguin a bird if you believe it and none of it's ancestors could fly? Surely the whole point of it being a bird is that it [b]can/could fly!![/b]

Ostriches don't fly do you call them birds?
Kelly