Exactly why wouldn't a designer use some of the same material?
Do we use concrete for streets and dirt for sidewalks?[/b]
Is your god a human with limited physical resources and 21st century technology?
If your god is the first cause with omnimax power, there is no reason to think that it should use the same material instead of entirely heterogenous material. [/b]
Yes there is, because the Hebrew word used implies molding something from something already present.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung What was the first bird like? How do we determine whether something is a bird or a dinosaur such that there can be no organism with some qualities of each that doesn't fit neatly into either category?
I would imagine the first bird--if it was created during the time of dinosaurs as Archaeopteryx seems to attest to--would have been a lot like modern day birds, only with some of the material God used to create dinosaurs.
After all, why create something totally new when there's material around to use?
Originally posted by Darfius I would imagine the first bird--if it was created during the time of dinosaurs as Archaeopteryx seems to attest to--would have been a lot like modern day birds, only with some of the material God used to create dinosaurs.
After ...[text shortened]... reate something totally new when there's material around to use?
So was Archaeopteryx a bird? It sounds like you feel it was. So do you believe "vertical" evolution (whatever that is) can take place? Many creationists claim this is impossible.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung So was Archaeopteryx a bird? It sounds like you feel it was. So do you believe "vertical" evolution (whatever that is) can take place? Many creationists claim this is impossible.
Please explain what you mean by that. I'm in ignorance.
Originally posted by Darfius Yes there is, because the Hebrew word used implies molding something from something already present.
Then why don't you use that to support your claim in the first. Why rely on such a weak analogy?
In fact, you make the same homogenous material claim again and this time support it with "why create something totally new when there's material around to use."
If you are talking about your god, then it should hardly matter how a human would build roads and sidewalks or which materials a human might use to build the universe. Just say that he used the same material because the Bible says so. That's really what your saying.
Originally posted by Darfius Please explain what you mean by that. I'm in ignorance.
This is a very common statement creationists make:
We have noted from the statements of leading evolutionary scientists that no true vertical evolution from one kind of organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm
Would you say that you agree with this statement, or with something similar? Do you think "information" cannot increase via evolution?
I am only repeating what many creationists have told me. If you don't agree with them, then never mind.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung This is a very common statement creationists make:
[b]We have noted from the statements of leading evolutionary scientists that no true vertical evolution from one kind of organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm
Would you say that you agree with this stat ...[text shortened]... ind.
This isn't a tough question, I don't think:
Was Archaeopteryx a bird or not?[/b]
Yes it was a bird.
And I don't believe one kind of organism has been observed to go to a more complex kind.
And I can name a lot of "irreducable complexities". 😉
Like theropod dinosaurs, most early birds, including Archaeopteryx and the enantiornithines, were likely to have retained bellowslike septate lungs. These taxa possessed a relatively unremarkable ribcage-sternum apparatus and clearly lacked the skeletomuscular capacity to have ventilated abdominal air sacs
http://www.televar.com/~jnj/item28.htm
So how do you know Archaeopteryx had bird lungs? It looked to me like the evidence points to this not being true.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung What kind of lungs did Archaeopteryx have?
I found these statements on Google:
[b]the avian lung has air sacs
Like theropod dinosaurs, most early birds, including Archaeopteryx and the enantiornithines, were likely to have retained bellowslike septate lungs. These taxa possessed a relatively unremarkable ribcage-sternum apparatu ...[text shortened]... chaeopteryx[/i] had bird lungs? It looked to me like the evidence points to this not being true.
Did you notice the phrase "were likely"?
I will amend it to state that it was a bird because it could fly and had feathers. Also because it had fossil structure in the wings in accordance to birds, rather than therapods.
Originally posted by Darfius Did you notice the phrase "were likely"?
I will amend it to state that it was a bird because it could fly and had feathers. Also because it had fossil structure in the wings in accordance to birds, rather than therapods.
I did notice the phrase "were likely". Did you notice that the sentence discussing air sacs doesn't include that phrase?
Where did modern day bird lungs come from if they weren't created when birds were?
Why are you amending what defines something as a bird? You made an assumption based on your belief about birds and Archaeopteryx, and it turned out to be incorrect. That's evidence against your position. Do you agree?
Originally posted by aardvarkhome reptile have lungs or are you being deliberately stupid?
As I understand it, the lungs of a bird pushes air in one direction in a dynamically different way then all other mammals. It's one of the peculiarities that evolution does not easily account for. So don't be so quick to criticize, it tends to make you look stupid.
What species did birds come from?
02 Apr '05 01:52
Back to Top