Is This Iconic Evolutionary Bird Really Not a Bird?
- Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:09am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
NEW YORK (The Blaze/AP) — One of the world’s most famous fossil creatures — Archaeopteryx – widely considered the earliest known bird on Earth, is getting a rude present on the 150th birthday of its discovery: A new analysis suggests it isn’t a bird at all. The International Business Times reports:
In subsequent years, theories of the bird species evolution drew heavily on archaeopteryx. But the discovery of several feathered dinosaurs in the past 15 years has led experts to question whether it was really the first bird.
Thus, Chinese scientists are proposing a change to the evolutionary family tree that boots Archaeopteryx off the “bird” branch and onto a closely related branch of birdlike dinosaurs.
Archaeopteryx (ahr-kee-AHP’-teh-rihx) was a crow-sized creature that lived about 150 million years ago. It had wings and feathers, but also quite un-birdlike traits like teeth and a bony tail. Discovered in 1861 in Germany, two years after Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species,” it quickly became an icon for evolution and has remained popular since.
The Chinese scientists acknowledge they have only weak evidence to support their proposal, which hinges on including a newly recognized dinosaur.
Other experts say the change could easily be reversed by further discoveries. And while it might shake scientific understanding within the bird lineage, they said, it doesn’t make much difference for some other evolutionary questions.
Archaeopteryx dwells in a section of the family tree that’s been reshuffled repeatedly over the past 15 or 20 years and still remains murky. It contains the small, two-legged dinosaurs that took the first steps toward flight. Fossil discoveries have blurred the distinction between dinosaur-like birds and bird-like dinosaurs, with traits such as feathers and wishbones no longer seen as reliable guides.
“Birds have been so embedded within this group of small dinosaurs … it’s very difficult to tell who is who,” said Lawrence Witmer of Ohio University, who studies early bird evolution but didn’t participate in the new study.
The proposed reclassification of Archaeopteryx wouldn’t change the idea that birds arose from this part of the tree, he said, but it could make scientists reevaluate what they think about evolution within the bird lineage itself.
“Much of what we’ve known about the early evolution of birds has in a sense been filtered through Archaeopteryx,” Witmer said. “Archaeopteryx has been the touchstone… (Now) the centerpiece for many of those hypotheses may or may not be part of that lineage.”
The new analysis is presented in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature by Xing Xu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, and colleagues. They compared 384 specific anatomical traits of 89 species to figure out how the animals were related. The result was a tree that grouped Archaeopteryx with deinonychosaurs, two-legged meat-eaters that are evolutionary cousins to birds.
But that result appeared only when the analysis included a previously unknown dinosaur that’s similar to Archaeopteryx, which the researchers dubbed Xiaotingia zhengi. It was about the size of a chicken when it lived some 160 million years ago in the Liaoning province of China, home to many feathered dinosaurs and early birds. According to the Guardian, Paul Barrett, a dinosaur researcher at London’s Natural History Museum, had the following to say:
“The overall picture of birds being descended from meat-eating dinosaurs is now very firmly established. This is an argument over a relatively small rearrangement of some of the twigs on the evolutionary tree close to the origin of birds. It doesn’t affect much of our big picture view of how birds came from dinosaurs, but some of the minutiae: the small changes that are important to the biology of the animals.
This part of the evolutionary tree is very sensitive to small changes in how we interpret the anatomy and the combination of anatomical features we see in these animals as they are discovered. As a result, the structure of that evolutionary tree is very unstable and can flip around. Maybe Archaeopteryx wasn’t on the direct ancestral line to birds, but was part of an early experimentation in how to build a bird-like body.”
Julia Clarke of the University of Texas at Austin, who did not participate in the study, said the reclassification appeared to be justified by the current data. But she emphasized the study dealt with a poorly understood section of the evolutionary tree, and that more fossil discoveries could very well shift Archaeopteryx back to the “bird” branch.
Anyway, moving it “a couple of branches” isn’t a huge change, and whether it‘s considered a bird or not is mostly a semantic issue that doesn’t greatly affect larger questions about the origin of flight, she said. The International Business Times continues:
…the assertion of Xu‘s study doesn’t challenge the scientific community’s assumption that birds evolved from dinosaurs. However, they may have to look elsewhere to bestow the title of the oldest known bird fossil. Moreover, the theory of evolution may have lost one of its early icons.
Luis Chiappe, an expert in early bird evolution at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County who wasn’t part of the new study, said he doesn’t think the evidence is very solid.
“I feel this needs to be reassessed by other people, and I’m sure it will be,” he said.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 697 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 529 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 355 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 354 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 347 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 347 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 355 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 268 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 347 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (253)
Lone Ranger
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:00pmTeacher, teacher, I have a question !!!! How could dinosaurs have evolved into birds or anything else, when they were supposedly wiped out by a single cataclysmic event 64 million years ago??
And in all the research into evolution, has ANY species been observed to evolve into another species??
Report Post »Spqr1
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:05pmAnother one who clearly does not understand natural history, at all.
Report Post »PrfctlyFrank
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:11pmOK SPQR1, explain the answers to LONERANGERS questions.. Do it.. Prove evolution, along with the time line involved.. Show us, ignorant hicks, the answers to evolution that makes it make sense at all.. Like I said, along with a time line that doesn’t totally contradict itself.. Educate us about, Natural Science..
Report Post »briten821
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:52pmSPQR1 won‘t answer the question because that’s not what they do. When all you have is often repeated and wildly speculative theories it’s easier to try and make fun of “unbelievers” than to try and persuade them with reasonable discussions.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 3:49pm@prfct ha, always this desire for “proof” from creationists. Nothing in science is ever “proved” You can only prove something in mathematics… What can be shown is evidence supporting the hypothesis of evolution..of which there is plenty to suggest the hypothesis is true..and so much so it has been deemed a fact. It would also be a hypothesis that the evidence we do have is just planted here by god to test our faith but there is no evidence for that or experiment able to test such a hypothesis…You would have to become an intense biologist student to gain the insight you seek…The properties and signatures of life molecules by meta-analysis support evolution very very very very strongly..Creationists best defense is time.. Yes we can never test a billion years of wild in a lab… so you win. If you were living in the year 1600s you would be part of the same cohort scoffing at the discovery of pre-biblical creatures found in the dirt and arguing it a hoax and insult against god.. now you can‘t dispute dinosaur bones exist or that they’re millions of years old so you move on to the next half-brained anti-evolution argument… even if intelligent design exists evolution is a fact.
Report Post »HD Veteran
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 4:08pmLone ranger— So correct, and I bet you also know, unlike SPQR1 et al, that birds already existed at the time of this so-called “transitional fossil.”
So why would a dinosaur turn into a bird when birds were already present. Anyone?
Let’s all recall COELANCANTH was a clear cut transitional fossil that died out 65 million years ago. It was the fish that grew legs. Then someone happened to catch one off the African coast. Low and behold, there are millions of “extinct walking fish” alive in the ocean today!
Evolution is a great science, no?
Report Post »High on a Mountain
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 6:04pm@ Lone Ranger
Dogs are a prime example of evolution. They all came from wolves at one point. Now a chiwawa and a great dane may be capable of reproduction, but only artificially (for obvious reasons). Some dogs have great smell, some have long hair, some have none.
I feel that it‘s important to state that I’m a stalwart Christian however, and I find it ridiculous that people get so bent out of shape over topics such as “Evolution, The Creation of the Universe, and what not,” Does it really matter? However God decides to populate the Earth, and how he goes about doing it is hardly an issue of Spirituality. When we‘re all good and dead you can ask God about how the whole thing works and that’s really the only way you’ll know for sure.
Sure evolution may be a big scam, and all the animals that we have on the planet now were all deposited here sometime after the dinosaurs by either Aliens or God. Personally the only thing that really matters is if you‘ve got faith that you’re a Son/Daughter of our Father in Heaven and that we were all created in his image, and that we can return to be with him; you’ll find all the fluff starts to become a whole lot less important.
Report Post »scott2012
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:09pmIt should be pronounced, AHR-kee-o (old) teh-rihx (wing).
Report Post »scott2012
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:45pmMaybe adaptation (evolution) is the most intellegent part of the creators Intellegent design?
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:14pm@SCOTT2012
Report Post »I made a bumper sticker about 10 years ago that might express your thoughts.
“Evolution IS an Intelligent Design”
TheGreyPiper
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:28pmIt takes a couple of textbooks to explain it adequately. Few areas of science are amenable to four or five line rejoinders — unlike a smarmy, sneering, rhetorical question. If any of you are really interested though, I’m sure an internet search, taking up all of, say, 2 minutes, would lead you to the answers you don’t want.
Personally, I am terrifically impressed with the way God Almighty set His creation in motion. And what better way to pass the time of Eternity than to create living things, make them autonomous, and enjoy the spectacle of these creatures growing and changing over the aeons?
Until the day He saw one likely specimen, picked it up from the dust of the ground, put it in a Garden, and said, “Good morning!”
Report Post »TruthBearer
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:24pm@High on a Mountain
I would modify that dogs are a prime example of natural selection – not evolution. Case in point: dogs and wolves can produce viable offspring which, unlike a mule which has lost more genetic information, can continue to produce. Therefore all dogs are just that: dogs. The variation between the kind indicates only a loss of genetic information. All hoaxes removed, there is no example of a positive genetic mutation.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:41pmThe answer to question 1 is that there was a massive extinction event which killed large numbers of species, predominantly large land-dwelling cold-bloods (most dinosaurs) and many species of vegetation (those dependent upon warmer temperatures and lots of sunlight). The answer to question 2 is yes–Darwin’s finches.
Report Post »bleedingbrain
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 9:57amThey say it doesn’t work like that. But they keep breeding them fruit flies to this day. Why? They are trying to observe evolution which is unobservable to date. In the end it is the moral code they are at war with.
Report Post »Ron Staiger
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 10:06amTry reading a thesis or two on drosophiia melanogaster evolution- simple example for a simple mind.
Report Post »awestruck
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 12:13pmGreat question, Lone Ranger. In the movie “Expelled” Ben Stein effectively pins the High Priest of the Church of there is NO God, Richard Dawkins, down to admitting that life could not have arisen by undirected chance. He reluctantly conceded it must have been seeded here from somewhere else. Of course that does not really address the question at all. It just pushes it back.
Report Post »Every time the Bible touches on science, for instance in the order of creation, it meshes with what scientist have shown to be true. Theories come and go, but the Bible remains a steady, reliable source of history and Truth.
Trouble2
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 3:44pmI was a vertebrate paleontology student a few years back. What I was taught was that Archeopteryx was a “bird like” dinosaur from the branch of dinosaurs that had “bird like” hips and that’s why it was considered a precursor to birds. It was not a true bird it could not “flap” it’s “wings” because it had no keel bone muscles like birds have. That picture looks more like a pterosaur, than Archeopteryx.
Report Post »zmwill
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 9:34pmNo verticale evolution has ever been witnessed or have had evidence found. But man and dinosaurs are found in same rock formations/layers. Man and dinosaur fossil……… http://184.154.224.5/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=24 Interestingly enough every nation region tribe from all over the earth all have “legends” of dragons of some sort… or dinosaurs. I believe the Big Bang. God said it and BANG it happened.
Report Post »Jim AZ
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 4:07amYou HAD to be there! It was great!
Report Post »Jim AZ
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 4:13amThere are proofs outside of math, Cesium, but they share similar characteristics.
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 12:33pmSo “Rocky” the flying squirrel wasn’t really a bird either, though he was able to fly? Go figure. It‘s no different than an ape walking upright on two feet doesn’t make it a pre-human.
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 12:45pmEvolutionists and Idiots … Birds of a feather.
Report Post »squirrel
Posted on August 1, 2011 at 5:39pmFrank, Clearly SPQR1 “does not understand natural history” enough to make a rational statement just accusations…
Report Post »nort0149
Posted on August 1, 2011 at 6:12pmEvolution takes a long time. A mutation that is beneficial for an organism must occur and that mutation then must be passed on. This has been whitnessed in simple organisms with quick reproduction rates. The wonder drug Penicillin is no longer as effective due to this. We have inadvertenly created bacteria that is immune to Penicillin because those strands that had mutations which made them immune became the new winning design. Bacteria has evolved.
Evolution does not say where life came from, just where it has been. Without the ability for oranisms to evolve life would not exist. All life on Earth has been built with the same building blocks of DNA in slightly different sequences. Adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine are the four nucleotides that make up DNA. It is the pairing up and placement of these nucleotides that determine if you are a mushroom or a human. Seeing that all life comes from this foundation, it is safe to bet we are all related. If we found life that was not based on this design it would be safe to say it is not related.
Report Post »Amren
Posted on August 2, 2011 at 12:59pmNope! Not a one. Although, I will be flamed for saying so.
Report Post »agameofthrones
Posted on August 2, 2011 at 4:02pmSPQR1: Then enlighten us. I am a science major so I would be REALLY interested in your knowledge of the subject. That is usually all the pro-evolutionists have to say. You have a theory not a set of facts to deal with. There are many other possibilities.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:33pmCan you say, “transitionary forms?”
I’m gonna save a link to this Blaze story to send all you Creationist Evolution-deniers the next time you claim the fossil record doesn’t actually contain any evidence of one species evolving into another.
Report Post »Bullhorn Guy
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:41pmCan you say, “transitionary forms?”
Did you even read the article?
By the way, why is abiogenesis always always left out of the evolution discussion? As if you can have one without the other. I would really like to hear one theory about how we go from no life to life that isn’t infinitely more absurd than intelligent design. Just one…please?
Report Post »ladkins
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:41pmCan you say “Make Believe”?
Report Post »You have truly great faith to believe that.
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:13pm@Bullhorn Guy:
Ever heard of a very narrow, specialized field of study called Astrobiology? It exists. There’s also Astroseizmology, just to illustrate the breadth as well as depth of _stuff_ there is to study from places other than the Earth and our immediate neighborhood.
Astrobiology uses remote sensing capacities of all different kinds of telescopes, but mostly radio telescopes, to search the universe for signs of life and proto-life. No, not intelligent life. The chemical indicators of the building blocks of life… and they find it. All manner of chemicals that are vital to the operations of carbon based life is littering, I’m sure some would say polluting, the universe. Even to the point of self-organized proteins have been detected _out_there_ from _down_here_.
Abiogenesis is not the be-all-end-all of Evolution. I don’t care if life started here in a sea-side pool of primordial ooze struck by lightning or heated by vulcanism or not. Ever heard of comets? They are why we even HAVE oceans. Galactic dirty snowballs. Full of water ice and… other stuff. That other stuff tends to be replete with that stuff Astrobiology searches for.
So, whether the deed happened planet-side on Earth, or on some other planet, or in the hard radiation of outer space, I don’t care. It doesn’t matter. Once Earth upgraded by installing Life, every lifeform we know of… say it with me now… EVOLVED!
Bullhorn Guy
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:27pmI agree with you that it doesn’t matter where the “building blocks” came from. My question was, how did we go from no life, to life? You say you don’t care how it happened, because the the question is problematic, and therefore easier to ignore. I’m not saying that evolution is not a valid hypothesis. I’m simply asking why it is acceptable to sweep the question of the origin of life under the rug. It seems bad scientific form, to me.
Report Post »Hitch
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:04pmLESBIAN PACKING GUY (???)
I‘m afraid you don’t understand evolution.
One of the foremost astrobiologists around is Guillermo Gonzalez – a creationist.
The so-called building blocks of life are DNA and protein – not water, salt, sugar.
There are NO laws of physics or chemistry that can create biological molecules like DNA out of mere chemicals lying around.
DNA is a vast, organized, information molecule, with coded instructions for building life.
It cannot be and isn’t random, it isn’t a product of mere filtering by selection. Instructions require intelligence. Coded sign systems require intelligence. No other source is known and no other source is even possible!
In the words of scientist Robert Shapiro, “DNA holds the recipe for protein construction. Yet that information cannot be retrieved or copied without the assistance of proteins. Which large molecule, then, appeared first in getting life started–proteins (the chicken) or DNA (the egg)?
Report Post »…
By extrapolation of these results, some writers have presumed that all of life’s building could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites and other extraterrestrial bodies. This is not the case. A careful examination of the results of the analysis of several meteorites led the scientists who conducted the work to a different conclusion: inanimate nature has a bias toward the formation of molecules made of fewer rather than greater numbers of carbon atoms, and thus
Apologist
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:33pm@ Lesbian Packing – Directed Panspermia…are you kidding!! Thanks for the laugh.
Report Post »briten821
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:49pmHitch and Lesbian are two examples of the differences between evolutionists and creationists. Hitch uses logical, well thought out arguments based on scientific fact. Lesbian uses sarcasm, mockery and talking points developed by people who just want to believe something OTHER than that there is a God who may have certain standards for us to live by. There’s no use…
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 3:07pmHitch is using faulty logic and not understanding the facts and arguments. The problem with creationists is that their evidence must fit a book of myths. Cherry picking data and facts to fit man’s understanding of the world 4,000 years ago. Creationist are joke to be mocked.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 3:10pm@Bullhorn Guy:
“As if you can have one without the other.”
I illustrated how the two are not inexorably intertwined. They are different problems for science to solve. Just because one hasn’t been solved yet, in no way impacts the validity of the other, which is what you were attempting to imply. “Since Evolution believers haven’t cracked abiogenesis, Evolution is invalid.” That is how I read your comment. As for my first comment, which started this thread, the article was not necessarily the impetus for it, but rather the impetus for that comment was ignorant Creationists on The Blaze I’ve heard claim there is a lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. This article represents a prime counterexample to that claim.
@Hitch:
I know. The 1500 character limit sucks, especially now that it doesn’t represent a real-time indicator.
“There are NO laws of physics or chemistry that can create biological molecules like DNA out of mere chemicals lying around. ”
Please point out to me in any post I’ve made in this thread, where I mentioned DNA. I’m not talking about DNA. I’m talking about proteins and other, simpler, molecules. Your argument against abiogenesis, that it has to jump from simple molecules to DNA with no intermediary steps, is just the standard Creationist argument, that the fossil record shows a jump from goo to you with no intermediary steps writ small.
When discussing abiogenesis, DNA doesn’t enter into it. There are a number of lifefo
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 3:28pmWhile it is exactly true that in order to have a larger, more complex living organism, the shear amount of information it would need to store instructions for its own life processes requires an efficient information storage and retrieval mechanism. DNA represents the solution to that problem that caught on. But between the need for DNA and simple molecules, there is a wide berth of territory for other forms of life and proto-life to exist.
You seem to be confused as to what a protein is and isn’t, like you‘re pointing to a Bugati Veyron and a horse drawn wagon and claiming they’re not both wheeled conveyances. There are simple proteins and complex proteins. There are also raw, natural chemical processes which yield structures, both macroscopic and microscopic, with which molecules in the primordial ooze may interact in life-like ways.
Further, the existence of extremeophiles which live in conditions that human science never would have predicted or accepted that life could exist gives further evidence that any number of scientists attempting to use current human science to explore abiogenesis and failing in no way produces evidence that it is impossible. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
I fully expect, before my life is lived, there will be more “grand mysteries of science” discovered, and existing grand mysteries tested and found wanting (string theory) or answers proven (missing mass problem). It’s how science works. You, and every Creat
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 3:31pm@hitch, yes hitch but you are ignoring the fact that we have found amino acids and purines on meteorites.. creationists like to do this..create a little box of transient negative evidence and close it… I love their “diamond” defense… it’s laughable to physicists and radio-daters..You seem to be living in the past… Neither DNA nor protein is thought to have come first.. Look up “RNA world” Also considering that amino acids and purines can arrive by extra-terrestrial matter suggests, nothing necessarily came first, but came together… Your argument is also getting away from evolution but into “origin of life.” Concerning origin of life, who are you to say reactions in the universe could not produce purines or pyrimidines? ridiculous…if we can make them in the lab, so can “the big lab.” It is not necessarily true you need intelligence, when all chemical reaction outcomes in the universe are possible. What is most likely a fact is that you yourself want there to be a an intelligent designer. The concept of a “hidden” creator gives people purpose in life or excuses to feel righteous or “loved.”,and if you’re brainwashed to believe this you will.. plenty of atheists and agnostics who enjoy life, are good moral people, and find purpose.,. To find purpose in life that has potentially no supernatural purpose, is in itself epic! When it comes to the raison d’etre, “no one knows” is the only truthful answer. anyone claim to know a creator exists is “wishing
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 3:43pmYou, and every Creationist commenting on this story, would use science’s failures and mistakes to indict the very idea of science. I merely let the machinations of science turn and see what knowledge it leads to.
@Apologist:
More like undirected panspermia. I have no genuine preconceived notions as to how abiogenesis does work. I’ll let science inform me how, when, in the fullness of time, it does so. And even if it doesn’t manage it in my lifetime… oh well. It doesn’t shake my faith in science one bit. Abiogenesis and Evolution are still better, simpler, explanations of how we got here than divinity.
You claim that the fact that science hasn’t proven abiogenesis YET means it NEVER will, but divinity, by its very definition, at least according to Christian apologists, is immune from scientific investigation and proof or disproof. So, which way of knowing takes more faith? That science will ultimately uncover all of the answers, or that all of the answers are already available from a certain religion, if only you BELIEVE properly… or another religion. Or another. Or that one over there?
Report Post »ladkins
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 3:48pmOk, let’s talk about the building blocks of life. Let’s say I have a dead body in front of me and it’s still warm; Death was by natural causes, it just stopped living. All the vital organs work and all the ones that aren’t quite as vital do as well.
You can’t get a more complete set of building blocks of life than that, why do we not have life?
I contend that it is God that gives life and not happenstance or great periods of time. Following your logic if I just wait long enough and maybe shock it on a random basis over millions of years that fella should get up and walk at some point.
Because that is what you are asking everyone to believe, that we did the exact same thing over millions/billions of years starting with a lot fewer building blocks.
As I said earlier… Your faith is great.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 4:54pm@ladkins… It would be impossible to explain to you how a straw works!! If the person is dying, certain vital organs are not working!!! I am an aging scientist, and it is shown in that many organs/tissues/celltypes gradually lose output/function as you age..without overt signs of pathology(other than aging) …no time to teach medicine to you at the moment, need to resuspend my magically created RNA samples in water
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:35pmNo life to life? That is the question;we don’t really know what life is,we know the properties and functions and what is entailed in being alive[respiration, metabolism, alimentation, digestion, reproduction etc [and at more micro biological levels] but exactly what is life we really don’t know!Am i right? And are there not apparently inorganic crystal like substances that can get activated spontaeously apparently,and become organic[alive].?And please explain consciousness -how matter can produce thought.can’t be says my mind! As Descartes said i think therefore i am [being; selfhood as consciousness not matter]
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:49pmThis is not meant to be insultive; it’s just an observation that I see when such discussions take place. The reason that “LesBian packinG hollow poinTs” wants to believe that one species can transform into another is clear. They don’t like how they were Created and want to change. Only something like a caterpiller can naturally change into a moth. A women will always _naturally_ be a woman and a man will always _naturally_ be a man. It takes a surgeon to try to fool Mother Nature.
Report Post »No disrespect intended, it’s just an observation.
Fuul Aluuf
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:54pm@LESBIAN
I have no genuine preconceived notions as to how abiogenesis does work. I’ll let God inform me how, when, in the fullness of time, he/she/it does so. And even if it doesn’t manage it in my lifetime… oh well. It doesn’t shake my faith in God one bit. Intelligent Design is still better, simpler, explanations of how we got here than Abiogenesis and Evolution.
You claim that the fact that God hasn’t decided to appear and prove Intelligent Design YET means it NEVER will, but Evolution, by its very definition, at least according to scientists, is immune from scientific investigation and proof or disproof because we don’t have the ability to perform a billion-year experiment. So, which way of knowing takes more faith? That God will ultimately uncover all of the answers, or that all of the answers are available from science, if we only wait long enough…
Hehe.. I just think its funny watching people argue that science is better than faith and vice versa… if God actually exists then he is just another misunderstood phenomenon – the same as every other Scientific unknown. Yes, yes, the assumption is that if there is a God then his domain is outside the realm of Science and cannot be experimented on… hogwash. If God appeared tomorrow in central park then he would immediately become a Scientific fact, the same as any other Scientific fact that we haven’t discovered. So this is a false choice that y’all are debating. Check your assumptions.
Report Post »cykoaudio
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 2:34am1st,everyone knows cambrian explosion is thin layer,comparative w/others over age of earth,& all creatures w/high function(ears,eyes),appear at same time in fossil record-yet 2b explained by scientist w/o a dozen peer reviewed responses w/more facts on their side,because evolutionists do exactly what they decry religious ppl for doing,forming a theory only observing facts from the perspective that the premise is already infallible,so all the data,like in global warming,is construed by scientists to fit pieces in where they belong,but since its a theory,& not necessarily true,its NOT A PUZZLE-that would insinuate the picture is formed,&was deconstructed,-scientists have to put back together-but the evolution puzzle,atheists never “tolerate” ideas,that maybe its not true-not open minded thinking-2cd Lucy was not upright walking hominid,or trans form,its been proven,much to chagrin of those that stick fingers in their ears when science helps them not,that Lucy was knuckle walker/tree dweller..CAN ANY EVO debate where are all those millions of fossil of chimpanzee ^ to human,where are all those half upright walking apes,millions of fossils there should be over millions of years right?but not ONE?.JUST READ Gerald Schroeder if you want the truth,from a scientist,he gets it right,all these queries..& shown how the 1% difference in our DNA/chimps,is 30 mil.mutations,& we know now its not possible over time allotted,5-10 mil.yrs,i believ
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 9:38am@Cyko Audio:
First, let me thank you for not using proper spelling, punctuation, or even paragraph breaks. I do so enjoy a reading challenge.
Scientists interpret data to fit within their preconceived notions? You mean because they won’t misinterpret data to permit religion to be shoehorned into their findings? I’ve already detailed how the old Earth theory is unassailable, without extraordinary evidence, due to findings from multiple, independent scientific disciplines, astrophysics, nuclear physics, geology, molecular biology, etc. If you want to argue for a young(er) Earth, just present your extraordinary evidence. Don’t be surprised if what you think is extraordinary evidence is actually non-evidence and religious dogma.
I’ve also detailed in response to other Creationists claiming unscientific things about ancient humans, how the human family tree is not several millions of years old. The K-T event happend about 65 mya. The developement of apes took a long time after that. Then, the developement of apes into humans started only 5 mya. If you’re looking for transitionary forms of apes into humans before 6 mya, 7 mya, 10, 20, 40 mya, you’re not going to find them… DUH! Edify yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Divergence_of_the_human_lineage_from_other_Great_Apes
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 9:39am@Cyko Audio: (con’t)
The K-T event is thin because it was quick, not because it was incidental. 75% of all species were wiped out. That frees up a lot of niches in nature. Much of life on Earth is the result of catastrophism. Of course small mammals the size of field mice underwent rapid evolution into larger animals to fill those niches. How long would you expect those niches to go unfilled after an ELE? Exactly how “same” was the time overwhich you are claiming these high functioning animals appeared in that aftermath?
As for Gerald Schroeder, by citing him, you lost any credibility you might have had. From his Wikipedia page, “Schroeder attempts to reconcile a young Earth creationist Biblical view with the scientific model of a world that is billions of years old…” In other words, he does the obverse what you just ACCUSED me of doing. He tries to interpret scientific evidence through a non-scientific lens of religious dogma.
Report Post »bleedingbrain
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 10:15amWe don’t know. Evolutionists assume and call it fact. I am not saying there is a God, But there may be. Until you folks stop assuming and literally making **** up, it would save your credibility to quit saying you know when you don’t. I read articles of how stupid believers were for believing there was a beginning, and that the universe was static and infinite, therefore no creation. Did christians get an apology? No, they moved on to the next assumed fact. I think our DNA may have been deliberately fused. If I were an evolutionist, it would be fact. lol
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 6:32pm@Bleeding Brain:
First, you need to get that treated.
Second, you need to wrap your head around the fact that there are two very different characters of human knowledge.
When a scientist says that we KNOW something, it’s because that thing has made itself apparent through multiple scientific investigations which adhered to the scientific method. That thing might be falsified by a new scientific investigation, also adhering to the scientific method, tomorrow, when we’ll know something very different than we knew today.
When a Religionist says that we KNOW something, it’s because it was revealed to them by way of other men writing stuff down a long time ago and saying that some divine source dictated it to them. There is no investigation. There is no questioning it. There is no way to falsify it. It is now and forever.
Which way of knowing is truly the superior, the stronger way of knowing?
Further consider that the human way of knowing is, itself, rather fuzzy. Our brains have to make important, vital, even life and death decisions every day with less than perfect information. Our eyes play tricks on us. We couldn’t hear what that speaker said clearly. Where did I put my car keys? The brain has developed multiple methods to fill in the gaps of incomplete information from our sensory inputs.
In a very real way, science is the organic human knowledge system plus formal methods. Religion is just the human drive to know everything with perfect precision and
Report Post »Jim AZ
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 4:27am@LesPacHo: By definition, only a truth can be Known. Thus, a claim of knowledge that which is not is one of two things: 1) A mistake. 2) A lie. In either of those to cases, such claim is still: A falsehood.
Report Post »It is Such a Dam Shame that daft sobs, such as myself, must explain the simplest of logical analysis to other persons who are developed enough to have access to the internet.
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 2:27pm@Jim AZ:
If you lose your keys, you look for them, don’t you? Where do you look? On the coffee table. No, not there. Under the sofa cushions. No, not there. Shoot, in the refrigerator. Nope, not there either.
During this search for information, you know what information you are looking for, the location of your keys. The location of your keys is an unknown. But you are aware of your ignorance of the location of your keys, so the location of your keys is a *known* unknown.
Further, as you look around the house, you continually obtain more and more information about the location of your keys, namely not on the coffee table, under the cushions, or in the fridge. Every place searched narrows the scope of locations in which your keys CAN be, because you know more and more places where your keys CAN’T be.
Let’s say you find your keys. At that point, the location of your keys becomes a known, and because you are aware that you now know it, it’s a known known.
Figuring out examples of unknown knowns (things you know, but aren’t aware that you know) and unknown unknowns (things you don‘t know and aren’t aware that you don’t know) is left as an exercise for the reader.
Report Post »GadsdenGurl
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:10pmIt’s more like a bat which is a mammal.
Report Post »Spqr1
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:08pmDo you even know what actually makes a mammal a mammal according to the nomenclature?
Report Post »briten821
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:54pmAre you serious? Look at the thing. Clearly it has wings, and so it must have had feathers; and so it must have been a bird; and so it must have been the very first bird from which all other birds evolved. You people don’t know how evolutionists think, do you…
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 11:15amWell, it looks like a creature that is now extinct.
Since we do not have a video of it, all we are left with is this fossil. We do not know what it looked like nor do know what it did in it’s life. That’s it, end of story.
Anything more is just wild speculation.
Report Post »Tony
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:41amIsn’t it interesting that those who attempt to shut off all debate on “evolution” versus “intelligent design” or “creationism” by any means possible are the same people who attempt to shut off all debate on “global climate disruption” formerly known as “climate change” formerly known as “global warming” by any means possible. Also they seem to be the same people attempting to shut down Fox News, the only TV or cable news outlet that dares to report the what they think the truth is rather than the approved talking points all the other outlets use.
Report Post »banjarmon
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:12pmBird or dinosaur…I wonder how it would taste BBQed?
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:35pm@Banjarmon:
Archaeopterrific!
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:39pmOh. no, no. Better…
Talon lickin’ good.
Report Post »HankScram
Posted on July 30, 2011 at 4:00am@Tony,
We’re not trying to shut down the debate. You guys will keep talking about this forever. We’re just not interested in your debate. Earth flat, six thousand years old, special authority in a book, yours is the true religion . . . not an interesting conversation. We are interested in learning where we are wrong, but your point of view is not the opposite viewpoint, the interesting viewpoint. We are interested in hearing from people who read, think, study the physical world . . . you guys can listen to the folks talking about the end of the world – telling you what the bible means and how you’re going to be judged. You’re the followers of the lost souls.
We’re interested in people doing their best to piece together the puzzle by looking at the evidence. You know, the folks whose work lead to modern medicine, cars, computers, (you’ll like this) bombs, phones, electricity, new materials for our use . . . . Your guys contributed . . . their opinions about what we’re supposed to believe about God. I think the former group actually enlightens us about the nature of God far more than the religions that claim to know what man should believe.
Sounds like a boring existence to just wake up and try to confirm that everything you believe is true – as religions do. Much more interesting to wake up looking to learn something new – and change your point of view. IMO.
Report Post »hi
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:38amIn Genesis God said after creating man, “It is good.”
If evolution took place millions of animals would have suffered and died in order to evolve into man. There would have been much death and suffering.
God wouldn’t have said “It is good,” if so much death and suffering took place prior.
Also, death and suffering did not exist until man sinned. Therefore, evolultion could not have happened.
Report Post »Jack of Hearts
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:22pmRun that by me again?
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:38pmIt’s a simple principle. It’s called super-fecundity. Evolutionary effects are only seen after many, many generations of many, many individuals each being born, living, reproducing, and dying. It’s the way nature works, even on human time scales.
If you have a hard time squaring super-fecundity with your “good god”, then that’s a problem for you and your religious practices and beliefs… not for science or Evolution.
Report Post »Zer0
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:02pm@Hi,
Wow! That is some…..uh…….logic? Look “Hi”, I’m a Christian, yet I believe in evolution. There is no proof, evidence, etc that EVERYTHING (not only on this planet, but the entire universe) just “appeared”. However, there is proof/evidence that everyting slowly evolved over BILLIONS of years on this planet (from the very rocks and dirt under your feet, to the weather, to the animal life).
Furthermore, there was death and suffering (at least twice) on an unimaginable scale, often referred to as Mass Extinction Events. Death is not “bad”. It is a necessary cycle of life. To frame death as “good” or “bad” makes you sound like a ten year old with an extremely myopic/absolutist world view.
Your entire, severely flawed post, is the problem with reading the Bible in the most LITERAL sense and rejecting science (especially coupled with a lack of education), one ends up making ridiculous, public, statements on subjects which they know nothing about annd making Christians sound unhinged. Let me guess, you’re Evangelical?
“Hi”, you can hold deep religious, spiritual, views and still believe “the Earth is round”. If God is all-powerful and omnipotent, why can’t God do Evolution?
Report Post »Spqr1
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:06pmYour God still allows massive amounts of suffering and death in the world. Your point?
Report Post »Phoenixsoulfire
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:14pm@HI
I am a Christian but I think if you take the bible to it’s exact words would be fool hardy. FOr one God wants us to test him and his word. Two if you read the New testiments of Mark James and the like all of the same story but written by different people at different times all who knew Jesus in person. There are each different in their own ways.
The bible is a collections of different stories by different people. that was handed down by God to these people who then wrote them. They probably won’t remember every detail, I am sure some stories were past on generation after generation. Again would perverse the story to some degree,
My belief is that We were created by God. He helped animals evolve. Then he created man.
One more note. Have to remember the time restraint the bible puts on everything, It isn‘t the same time restraint God has on himself because he doesn’t have any. His 7 days could be our million of years. After working 6 days of that no wonder he didn’t mind resting!
Report Post »AmericanDogMan
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:57pmIt is literal! Earth slows and speeds her rotation due to events! Carbon dating and Lunar Calendar time can never be associated! Any real physicist will tell you us feeble humans use space and distance measurements to calculate time!
And I’m sorry but you guys need to read your Bibles again! Just read berasheit (Genesis)! How bout you guys just read genesis to the 4th chapter!
6,000 years man has had skin! Genesis 3:21. We have no idea how long they were in the garden before this. I would not call another brother in the Messiah (Christos; Christ) RACA (fool) But you guys that are Born again; Christians or Catholic who claim to follow our Savior. God’s salvation need to study more.
Evolution is a farce
Evolution and the Bible don’t mix! Period!
Report Post »Zer0
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:28pm@AmericanDogman,
I have read the Bible numerous times, and I re-read my post. Nowhere did I refer to anyone as a “fool”. Uneducated or unhinged, perhaps, but not a fool.
Even if you include, not only the six days in the Creation, but the entire scale of time in the Book of Genesis (much less the generations spent in the Garden of Eden), it is impossible to fit the entire geological and fossil record into that scale of time. It does not add up. I agree that if God is an infinite, celestial, being time is meaningless. Time is a construct of man,meant as a unit of measurement in relation to our Sun. This is why I do not believe that the Bible and Evolution are mutually exclusive. What is six days to God? If one is immortal, infinite, without a beginning or end, then billions of years could be percieved as merely “six days”.
I have a severe problem with all literal interpretations of the Bible, and most logical, clear, thinking people who are unafraid of questioning it, do. It simply does not make sense, and is often contradictory. Yet, if one were inclined to read the Bible, in a symbolic/philosophical sense it begins to make perfect sense. Furthermore, Genesis wasn’t written down for almost 1,000 years, when it was first passed down by word of mouth. Much of the Bible was spoken for years before being written. Also, the accounts in the New Testament were individual interpretations of events that were witnessed. It was not transcribed by God himself. (cont.)
Report Post »Zer0
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:49pm@AmericanDogman,
(cont.) The only portion of the Bible that was procclaimed to be transcribed by God himself was The Ten Commandments, but even the originals were destroyed by Moses himself, thus had to be re-written.
I do not have a problem with other Christians and their personal beliefs, but I do have a problem with ridiculous, baseless, statements and standing by them just because “the Bible says so”. I believe that to not only be wrong-headed thinking, but also dangerous. I believe that the New Testament is the greatest account of evolution ever….spiritual/societal evolution. Christ began to evolve us from the “eye for an eye”, God demanding sacrifices mentality, to “turn the other cheek”, God only requiring our loyalty and obedience. Again, literal interpretations of the Bible tend to muddle the grander spiritual message framed within its texts.
We all have our own beliefs, and I respect those beliefs, but at the same time if humanity were restricted by the rigorous dogma of European/Middle Eastern interpretations of religion (without question) then we would still be confined to the Dark Ages. I do not believe that the refusal to question one’s surroundings and dogman, the lack of desire to constantly be learning is in the spirit of Christ.*
Report Post »briten821
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 3:15pmAll of you “christians” who “believe the bible” but still believe in evolution are a strange breed of people. The bible says God created each group of animals “according to their kinds”. So there were different kinds of animals when God created them. He didn’t make a fish and let it evolve into a bird and a dog, he created each “kind” of animal. (Not each “breed”, but each “kind”.)- THAT’S what the bible says. If you don’t want to believe it, fine. But why believe the rest of the bible then? Why do you think you can pick and choose what YOU want to believe? Jesus himself spoke of the book of Genesis, including the flood and Adam and Eve as if they were true events. He didn’t sweep it aside as a “story” or “myth”. Yet you choose to dismiss parts of the bible as parable just because you want to believe something else? How does that work? Who gets to decide which parts of the bible God wants you to believe and which parts he was only kidding about?
Report Post »briten821
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 3:22pmZero- There is no denying geological records, the earth is VERY old. I’m not sure we have an accurate enough way to date things like that, but suffice to say, it’s not just a few thousand years old. But so what? Even if the story of creation took place in seven literal days, that didn’t mean the earth itself was created at the same time. The bible begins by saying God created the heavens (universe) and the earth. THEN it begins telling how God began improving the earth during the creative “days”. It doesn’t say how long ago God created the physical earth, elements, etc.
As for the length of days- there is strong evidence that they were very long themselves, based on several other verses, and that also leaves room for many animals (like dinosaurs) to have lived and died.
Report Post »Zer0
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 3:56pm@Briten821,
This is the last time I attempt to make this point, I believe in the Bible, just not in the same since as you. I do not believe the Bible was ever intended to be interpreted literally, rather it is a collection of parables meant to teach a broader spiritual lesson.
I am not “picking” which parts to believe, I believe the whole, the entirety, of the Bible just not literally. Those who “literally” interpret the Bible are the cherry-pickers…..all sin is equal in God’s eyes….except when it comes to gays. Love thy neighbor, unless that neighbor is Muslim or Hindu, but if you don’t believe LITERALLY that Jonah lived 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of a whale, you are not a true believer and are to be condmened to eternal dam/nation! That is the crux of the unbending, unyeilding, insanity of Evangelicals, a theology I mind you, that has only existed roughly 270 years yet constantly attacks the Christian denominations which they sprung forth from.
To each their own. Cheers.
Report Post »Bullhorn Guy
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 4:53pmHey Zero, you’re post-modern, “emergent” Christianity is just recycled gnosticism. Don’t skip the hard parts, just because you don’t “get it”. The hard parts are usually the best parts.
Report Post »briten821
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 5:58pmZero- your argument is often used by people who don’t want to be bothered with understanding the bible and living according to it. Jesus referred to Adam and Eve and the Great Flood, Paul referred to Noah, many of the so called “parables” were considered real events until modern “enlightenment”. Was Jesus wrong? You also say we pick and choose. How? The bible has TWO sets of laws. The first was given by God to the ancient Jews when he selected them as his people. Jesus had not yet provided the needed sacrifice to attone for mankind, so they had to live by a set of very strict laws and sacrifices to be “clean” in God’s eyes. Some of the laws seem strange to us, but so what. We’re not God. LATER, Jesus was born, and he told everyone that that old law code would be replaced, when he sacrificed his life, with a new set of laws that didn’t require sacrifices, etc because we could be “clean” in God’s eyes by taking advantage of the ransom he paid with his death. So it is not “picking and choosing” for us to not do the things in the old testament that were part of the law given to the ancient Jews. Jesus said it was not required, the apostles said the same thing. Yet people today are quick to forget that and act like a Christian is a hypocrate if he doesn’t stone a woman for adultery! Your example of “all sin equal in God’s eyes” is not true at all. Jesus forgave his diciples for many sins, but he said some sins were worthy of death, and God will give that punishm
Report Post »briten821
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 6:08pm…(cont) Some standards, especially regarding morality, never changed even when the Law of the Jews was done away with. Those standards, or sins, were laid out in the New Testament. Jesus may have said love your neighbor, but he also said some people were going to die for their sins. His apostles (writing under God’s inspiration according to 2 tim 3:16) told us how to love our neighbors, and how to reject those who didn‘t follow god’s laws. So the gospel of Christ isn’t all about love and peace like so many say it is. It is about a certain way to live our lives to show our love and appreciation for God who gave us that life. And if we choose to live another way, we sould have that life taken away from us (no resurrection).
Your beliefs are well and good, I respect your right to them. But you have a very misguided understanding of what the bible says. it has the same theme from Genesis to Revelation (Man’s sin and death, God’s plan for letting mankind try their way of living for a time while he puts in motion his plan for fixing it and finally prove to all mankind, once and for all, his way is the right way) That theme is found in every book, each one of those “stories” you choose to reject as myth are a piece of that puzzle, which the bible said was a “sacred secret” that the majority of mankind would never be able to piece together. So again I ask, who are any of us to decide for ourselves which parts of the bible are just “myth”?
Report Post »Consentiondum
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:42pmWhich story of creation in Genesis is the right one? Is it the one where GOD created plants and animals first and then Men and Women at the same time or is it the one where GOD created the Earth and then one man, then plants and animals and after those one woman?
Or just maybe there are some points and universal truths we are meant to take away from these two stories and not treat them as absolute word-for-word truth.
Report Post »TheGreyPiper
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:31pmHuh? The animals weren’t given the Commandments; they’re allowed to kill and eat each other, and have it be good.
Report Post »Zer0
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:30pmWhere are the dinosaurs at now?
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 11:36amZero,
I have read the comments in this string and I understand why you make your comments.
Report Post »If I may though, I would encourage you to re-read all of BRITEN821′s comments.
They are scripturally accurate as to the whole Bible and it’s overall message.
Zer0
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 5:24pm@WhiteFang,
Oh, I understood Briten’s post quite well. Briten asserts I do understand the Bible or I reject it (I guess he/she assumes that I am either Agnostic, Deist, or Gnostic). However, I am neither. I am a Christian who happens to believe that the Bible was never meant to be interpretted literally. I feel that those who do read the Bible and try to interpret it literally are the one’s who do not understand the Bible. Literal Biblical interpretations often blinds one from the spiritual lessons that it attempts to teach us, and just as often, leads to a “crisis of faith”.
Take Genesis, for example, one immediately begins to run into inconsistencies. Which was created first, plants or Man? After Adam and Eve conceives, who do their sons marry? If Adam, Eve, and their children are the only humans on the planet, where do all of these wives come from? How did all of those people get to Nod?
It is many of these individuals who claim they are Christians/Biblical experts here who need to revisit their Bibles and study it more.
Do not be upset with me. I did not author the Bible nor did I instruct those who read it, to take it literally. Again, if you are blinded by your own quest to “prove” the Bible is fact and to fit its stories in a world of fact and evidence you will miss the TRUE miracle of the Bible, it’s timeless spiritual messages. This is not some “New Age” approach to Christianity, nor an attempt to attack someone’s faith.
Once more…where d
Report Post »squirrel
Posted on August 1, 2011 at 6:09pmHey Spqr1 you stated;
“Your God still allows massive amounts of suffering and death in the world”. So What?
Please show me where anyone in the bible said “life will be Hunky Dory”. No that concept has been brought to bear by those who would ban “Tag in elementary school, and gives trophies to losers”. Do you truly believe these ideas are doing today’s youth any justice? It’s perfectly OK to suck at what you do life will be perfect anyway…
BTW in the beginning of the book Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden.
Just because this is America, don’t think that the laws of nature do not apply. Be prepared for your family and your neighbors. Start stocking up on food now while it is affordable. We get our food supplies from http://aoj.myefoods.com/freemeals/ you can try them for FREE, just pay shipping. They are inexpensive, storable and taste great! Go see for yourself.
Report Post »BubbaCoop
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:26amPretty much anything in field of evolution is misinterpreted to fit the flawed assumptions of billions of years.
Report Post »Zer0
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:14pm@BubbaCoop,
Versus what? Six days? That is a more accurate assumption than billions of years? You seriously believe, with all of your heart, that Man walked with the dinosaurs?
Report Post »Bullhorn Guy
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:00pm@Zero
There is actually quite a lot of evidence that man and dinosaurs co-existed. Nearly every ancient civilization, as recent as the middle ages, have stories of “dragons” and other giant lizards. I suppose it’s possible that they just found skeletons and made up stories to go along with them, but some of the cave drawings look suspiciously like modern day depictions of dinosaurs. Also, the Book of Job believed by scholars (secular as well as religious) to have been written around the 4th century BC, contains descriptions of giant land and sea creatures (Behemoth and Leviathan) that don’t seem to fit anything other dinosaurs.
Report Post »Bullhorn Guy
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:18pmJob chapters 40 & 41, if you want to look it up.
Report Post »Zer0
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 3:12pm@Bubba and Bullhorn,
I’ve read Job. I have no need to re-read the book. May I pose a question or two? How old do you think the earliest human is (discovered/undiscovered)? How old do you believe the oldest dinosaur (discovered/undiscovered)?
Another query….What does the Bible say LITERALLY about the dinosaurs in relation to man? Do you think that (if dinosaurs and man coexisted, that dinosaur would require a bit more than a footnote in Job). Where are the cave paintings of man hunting dinosaurs? Where did the dinosaurs go?
It gets rather dicey, doesn’t it, literally interpreting the Bible? If you believe in the Bible LITERALLY, why not live it LITERALLY. I’m not attempting to be antagonistic, rather why believe (absolutley, without question) 60%-70% of the Bible literally, then why toss out the other 30%-40% (I know neither of you are living your lives, as Job or Luke did)? You do NOT want me to start pulling books and verses of the Bible to refute both of your wild claims, and show the contradictory nature of literally interpreting the Bible. I would use scientific evidence, but I have a sneaking suspicion you would both simply cast it aside, claiming it to be a religion designed to usurp Christianity.
Report Post »Bullhorn Guy
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 3:46pmZero, you have made it apparent that you cannot intelligently defend your position, and so have reverted to your old standby: try and discredit the Bible and those who believe what it says. Here are some problems with what you said. 1)There are cave drawings of men and dinosaurs. In fact, there are rocks that are thousands of years old with paintings of men hunting dinosaurs. Of course, this doesn’t prove that men and dinosaurs coexisted, but it does suggest the possibility. Secondly, I only pointed out the Job passages to show that as recently as the 4th century BC there is literature that describes what appear to be dinosaurs. It has nothing to do with whether the Bible should be taken literally, or even read at all (so save the, “Kill your children” and any other verses you can Google to show how “silly” the Bible really is). You believe that all who disagree with the position you have adopted fit neatly into the category of backward Christians. This is because you are small minded. It is not necessary to study the Bible and then try and make the facts fit what’s written there. The evidence, as interpreted by many (not only religious people) does not support, in my opinion, the evolutionists position. It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with intellectual honesty. You may disagree, but you have already shown yourself incapable of independent thinking. So feel free to make some more assumptions about me based on your own bias.
Report Post »Zer0
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 4:13pmI’m not trying to discredit the Bible. I’m not an atheist out to destroy Christianity nor the faith. I’m trying to discredit the ascinine position of literal interpretations of Biblical events.
Where’s the link to the cave drawings of dinosaurs, where’s the fossil evidence of man and dinosaurs co-existing.
Small-minded? Very Christian indeed, very literal interpretation. I’m small minded because I believe the Bible are parables designed to teach lessons of spirituality and spiritual growth? You cannot say 100% the Bible is factual/literal and then decide, because you lie, cheat, and covet, you will not cut off the hand that causes you to sin. Do you live Leviticus? Which part of the Bible do you like today and then discard tomorrow?
Besides that much of Bible was passed on by word of mouth by MEN who inevitably made mistakes before it was written down by MEN who who also inevitably made mistakes, it was then TRANSLATED from Hebrew by more MEN who inevitably made mistakes.
If you are so hung up on “proving” that Bible is factual play-by-play account, then you will miss the whole point of why it was even written in the first place. To guide you SPIRITUALLY.
Don’t be mad at me, I’m not the one who misguided you and warped your mind with Evangelicalism.
Report Post »Don
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 4:52pmMany people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.
The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.
But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? – At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.
This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived “millions of years ago” instead.
This is common practice.
They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.
They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! – how’s that for an “exact” science?
They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic c
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 5:15pm@ don.. of course it was only a few thousand years old, a few thousand years is the minimum detection error.. a 100 year old bone would read a few thousand years old too… radioactive carbon in a dinosaur fossil from millions of years ago would have decayed completely.. that doesn’t mean the carbon molecules left do not get converted to C-14 by cosmic radiation.. that is always happening…in diamonds too.
Report Post »Bullhorn Guy
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 5:27pmEveryone here is also conveniently ignoring the bone marrow found in a T-Rex bone in Montana. 70 million-year-old soft tissue? Wow!
Report Post »Zer0
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 5:27pmDating fossil evidence isn’t just based on carbon dating, but in conjuction with geological evidence. Nice try though.
I had no idea that so many people believed that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. Furthermore, that they would be so entrenched in such a ridiculous notion.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 6:02pm@zero Yea man, you can find some amazing creationist videos on youtube.. really entertaining.. interestingly it seems that all the evidence that man walked with dinosaur is conveniently found in Texas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeqpRCbPVPw
Report Post »and you know it’s legit ’cause everyone on the show has a “Dr.” title.
Zer0
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:34pm@Cesium,
Lol. Thank you. I was afraid sanity had completely left these boards for a moment.
@Everyone else,
Where did the dinosaurs go? Did we hunt them to extinction? Did God will them into oblivion? I didn‘t realize Cletus and my dear ol’ grandpappy had dinosaur heads mounted on their living room walls.
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:16amCalm down, these are just theories.
Report Post »Underground Man
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 10:25pmA theory is the highest product of science.
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:52amwow.
Did theblaze cut and paste this story? Or, do writers at theblaze believe in evolution?
The story is filled with so-called “facts” that are worded as statements of fact, not of opinion…
“creature that lived about 150 million years ago”
“dinosaurs that took the first steps toward flight”
“it lived some 160 million years ago”
Perhaps some disclaimers would be in order, like, “IS BELIEVED TO HAVE LIVED” or “WHICH SCIENTISTS CLAIM TOOK FLIGHT”.
But, come on, theblaze, your readers expect better from you.
You are falling into the trap, either by cut-and-paste journalism, by low editorial standards, by hiring leftist ‘writers’, or by having heard the theories taught as fact for so long that you now believe them yourselves!
Hoping for an UPDATE on this story to correct some of these, but more importantly, hoping for better work from theblaze in the future!!!
Report Post »hi
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:18amHow about stating “which EVOLUTIONISTS claim took flight,” not scientists!
Report Post »Underground Man
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 10:34pmJust because there is a sizable faction of biased dissenters motivated by a simple-minded piety rather than good science, most of whom possess no formal or advanced education in the relevant fields, that does not justify relabeling facts discovered using reliable scientific techniques, “opinions.”
Report Post »tigerex78
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:35amThis news has been in discussion for quite some time in the scientific community. In fact the evolution of feathers has happened more than once. It is called convergent evolution. That’s why we see whales and fish with a similar body plan. Feathers were originally a form of insulation and not a form of flight. We see this in the fossil record quite plainly. I am not sure why the photo posted on this article is of the pterosaur pterodactylus. This is an extinct type of flying reptile that has totally different features. It is very easy to find a picture of archaeopteryx. Just do a google search. For those arguing that evolution is some religion I would say that you try to understand what evolution is and what science is. If it wasn’t for evolution and the principles therein many medical discoveries would not have been made. For those of you who think evolution attacks religion you really don’t understand that science and religion have nothing to do with one another. It again explains that you don’t understand what science really is.
Report Post »hi
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:15amhttp://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ117.html
Read and look at pictures in above website to know what Dr. Walt Brown, PhD from MIT says about the ultimate hoax.
Report Post »tigerex78
Posted on July 31, 2011 at 8:32pmTo HI, I have looked at Dr. Walt Brown’s website. I have also listened to other creationists who have disagreed with him. I have also looked at the many other comments arguing against the theory of evolution. I have yet to see someone who truly understands the ideas and concepts behind the theory. I have looked at both sides of the issue for years. I see over and over again those who don’t think evolution is a sound theory have a misunderstanding about the concepts of the theory. I have stated before that science has nothing to do with religion and religion has nothing to do with science. Science is understanding how the world works, religion is about living your life and salvation. The Bible is not a scientific book and never should be considered as such. A science book does not tell you anything about salvation.
Report Post »PA_TIM
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:28amI love The Blaze, but they need to improve quality control a bit. The fossil picture is not archaeopteryx. It is a pterosaur and is not considered a descendant or ancestor of birds. Also, what is wrong with the notion that God created a universe that functions by physical laws that we can observe, test, and learn. Otherwise, what is the purpose of faith in God? Faith is fundamental in my belief in God. I would also say to those that mock the faithful, faith is fundamental in science as well. Why else would we invest so much money, effort and time in failed scientific inquiries.
Report Post »Pydge
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:11pm….And then, (lest we forget) there is the ‘Aliens on Earth’ theories—why, doesn’t that fossil look like he has a spear?
Report Post »gemologist
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:04amEvolution is the religion being taught in schools and on tv today.
Report Post »ApokTheGreat
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:13amHas anyone else noticed that the picture of the fossil is not of Archaeopteryx but of a pterodactyl class of gliding dinosaurs?
Report Post »Evileye
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:21amIf you don’t belive in evolution,you should consider Obumbler.
Report Post »He is proof positive of reveres Evolution.
dthomps6
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:21amWhy are suggesting evolution as devoid of God? Can’t things evolve within God? If he is outside of time and space, then evolution is an acting out of His will.
I can never understand why there is so much contention between evolution and Christian beliefs.
Even Genesis and the story of evolution is in the same order. Earth forms and cools, water is delivered, fish, land animals, humans. Same story.
Report Post »gemologist
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:02amEvolution: One of the biggest hoaxes being pushed on us from the left… Anyone want to guess what the whole original title to “The Origin of the Species” is? … On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, let me dumb this down for y’all. Darwin was a racist, his idea, yeah eventually blacks will evolve into white or die out in the process.
Wow, now that‘s a guy who’s “theory” we should be teaching even if it has no basis in sanity.
The whole reason for the need for evolution to exist is to take God out of the proposed universe, and say that He didn’t do anything, it just happened. This is simple liberal propaganda and no sane person should accept it.
It is espoused on every science related piece of programming and if you watch closely, just about every time it is when you are marveling on how awesome our creator is, when the voice-over guy goes “millions of years of adaptation led to this extreme looking creature”
If they didn‘t keep dragging evolution in by it’s heels, you would rather quickly get the idea that God not only exists but is waaaay smarter than you, and that is one thing any liberal cannot tolerate.
We should not tolerate evolution being talked about like it has any basis in reality, I can destroy anyone on evolution, and every God-fearing person should be able to also.
So, Boo on blaze for talking about the evolutionary tree as if it is anything but an i
Report Post »Jack of Hearts
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:18am“Eventually blacks will evolve into white or die out in the process.” Darwin said nothing of the sort of course, but just to clarify, skin color lightened to “white” as **** sapiens migrated away from the equator and their original African homeland. The pigmentation used to protect us from the sun’s rays quite naturally reduced so that additional vitamins could be processed. Natural selection means just that – nature selects the genes most suited to an animal’s environment. Why you should be so terrified of this or believe that in any way this refutes the existence of God is one of life’s mysteries.
Report Post »Jack of Hearts
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:20amIncidentally, the ** above are the Blaze’s insertion, not mine. Obviously not up to speed with the correct terminology.
Report Post »Erabin
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:34am“Wow, now that‘s a guy who’s “theory” we should be teaching even if it has no basis in sanity.”
Yeaaaah, and Washington owned slaves. We shouldn’t listen to what such a horrible slave-owning monster said.
At least according to your logic. Apparently you cannot attack the theory, so you attack the person. Even if Darwin had raped every woman in Iceland and spent his holidays on a chair made of children bones, nested at the top of a mountain of skulls, his theory is still solid and evidence for it is overwhelming as it has been proven under lab conditions and is actually used for predictions in many scientific disciplines today, especially bacteriology and virology.
So kindly shut your trap.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:57amThis is just like when liberals were flat earthers, and they strung up those that said it wasn’t. Like global warming, the gay gene, and hundreds of half baked ideas to keep the poor poor and the rich rich that they have used through out time. No matter how many holes are poked in their crap theories, they ignore the holes, call those that show they are wrong names, and continue to spread their lies. Darwin himself admitted his theory was full of holes, but fit his agenda.
Liberals and their ignorance really scare me, last night I had 3 liberals threaten to tie a concrete block around my neck and drown me because I pointed out that there was more acres of forest, more trees, and forests are healthier, with better diversity than when white man came here due to proper forest management. They just can’t deal when something disagrees with their limited view of reality.
Report Post »Bullhorn Guy
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:23pmErabin said “his theory is still solid and evidence for it is overwhelming as it has been proven under lab conditions.”
Are you serious? Microevolution is the best evidence you can site to “prove” that dinosaurs evolved into birds? Slight mutations in the beaks of birds over generations do not show evidence of a species evolving into a new species. You cannot prove macroevolution, certainly not under lab conditions. That is why it’s called a “theory”. Whether it occurred or not is admittedly debatable, scientifically. However, an assertion that evolution is fact is no less a statement of faith than saying that there was an intelligent designer.
Report Post »AmericanDogMan
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:08pm:off topic:
Why does the Blaze keep blocking out the word **** h0m0. It can not be deragatory it’s not slang; it’s science. Too much P/C police sensitivity! It‘s bad when a person can’t write the word homosapien! LOL!
But I digress!
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 4:29pm@American Dog Man:
I know. It drives me nuts. It doesn’t censor “homosexuality” or “homogenization”, but it does “**** habilis”. Simple Greek term meaning “man” or “same”.
Maybe it doesn’t censor combined forms. Let’s see…
****-erectus
****-australopithecus
I know those aren’t correct, but it would be a way to deal with overzealous software censors. (if it works)
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:47amOkay so now the Chinese are presenting unto the world a question of is the birds descended from a super chicken or not? http://artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm
Report Post »nysparkie
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:39amTRY AGAIN BLAZE! Where is CESIUM now? Another link debunked. They keep looking and they just keep getting tossed out the window. High Brow Educations? Believe us. Just because we can‘t find one doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Hey guys, look over there…..no that’s not one…how about there!…nope not one either….what shall we do? I know we should just tell them for bones to fossilize it takes special “rare” conditions. So just because we can‘t find a link doesn’t mean it isn’t out there. That way those SPIRITUAL ONES can’t disprove us. We can say whatever we wish. Amen to the Brother, its a deal.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:00amYou really are delusional, and have a very, very limited knowledge of reality, you would have been much better off spending more time in school and less time under the bleachers rolling a fatty.
Report Post »beckwasfox
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:06amYou are right on Sparkie. You might actually get through to one of the great brain washed masses. I used to be one of them so it’s possible.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 5:29pm@NY uh yea I’m right here…anyway, weird response. Many would just say to you, “well how’s that for a nice intermediate” creationist(history denier). Too bad there isn’t a mammal with a bird bill that lays eggs, and delivers venom, oh wait…
Report Post »nysparkie
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:30amShould have copied my comments. Seems THE BLAZE has lost them again…geez.
Report Post »Tony
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:25amOver 40 years ago, Dr. Henry Morris and many other “creation” scientists said the Archaeopteryx was not a bird at all but a small dinasaur.
There are only two “models” to ponder about how today’s population of animals and people arrived on earth – the “evolution”’ model and the “creation” model.
The “evolution model says that ”life”started spontaneously from a single cell through transitional changes over billions of years, today’s variety of higher order complex life forms came about.
The creation model says that God created all forms of animal life in their final state in the beginning of time.
If the “evolution” model is correct, there should be billions and billions of transitional fossils that record the evolution of life from simple to complex life forms because trillions had to be formed. And there should be greater variety of animal life on earth today. .
If the “creation” model is correct, there should be billions and billions of fossils of animal life that look exactly like the animals we see today. In addition, we should a greater variety of animal life in the fossil record than we see today since all life was created at the beginning.
And over the past 150 years, billions and billions of fossils have been studied world wide. And what have we found? We have found billions and billions of fossils of life that look just like those of today plus a lot of extinct life forms but not a single indisputable tr
Report Post »Jack of Hearts
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:41amSo any fossil that doesn‘t match one of today’s species isn’t a transitional fossil but a species that was there at the beginning but is now extinct?
Report Post »ApokTheGreat
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:40amI disagree with the assertion that God created all the life forms on Earth in their current and final state. This assertion is provably false, and the BIBLE never claims this.
It is provably false in that the presence of breeds of animals and different members of animal families exist. The laws of genetics provide for adaptation of animals for survival. We use these laws to create dog breeds to perform certain functions like sheep herding, hunting aids, protection, etc..
This fact does not prove evolution, in fact it disproves evolution. The core of evolution is that NEW genetic information is spontaneously generated (even if it takes millions of years to generate) to change the characteristics of animals over time. This process has NEVER been observed, tested, or proven in any experiment. What HAS been observed, tested, and proven in experimentation is that genetic information is NOT NEW (or created) but handed down from parents to offspring. This is heredity NOT evolution. We do see genes being activated and deactivated, dominate genes expressed or recessive genes expressed, some genes dying out while others remain expressed or hidden. All one has to do is look at a litter of kittens and wonder how a orange tabby mother birthed such a variety of kittens.
Report Post »I believe that God created general classes of animals with lots of genes to pass down. Reproduction acted like a prism on the gene pool and we get variety quickly. This also explains Noah’s Ark and the animals thereon
Tony
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:59amAgree with apokthegreat’s corrections..thanks. I had gone back and simplified my comments, a bit too much it seems, to fit the limit. Genesis used the term “kinds” rather than the more restrictive “species” term we use today. A “kind” includes many “species”. And natural selection has been known by herdsmen for thousands of years, at least since Jacob. Today’s breeders are masters of the art but in all of their technologies, they never create “new” information, just the rearranging of old provided at the beginning.
And it is not I who say there is no “indisputable” transitional fossil but the scientific community who argue among themselves. It seems when one claims to have discovered a “ transitional” fossil, others just as quickly disprove it.
Report Post »ApokTheGreat
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:50pmBe careful with so-called “fossil evidence.” What they show you (from an odd camera angle and far away), are little pieces of bone fragments they found somewhere embedded in a clay model. This model is what the ASSUME was the creature from which came the bone fragments. This is not science, but artistry and imagination.
Report Post »So let me define what science is, since I am saying that something does not fit the definition. Science involves predicting the future when certain criteria are present. Example: Chem A + Chem B = Explosive reaction. We can predict the future outcome when Chem A meets Chem B.
Science is observable. We observe reality with our 5 senses and with mathematics. From observations we make hypothesis.
Science is testing the hypothesis. Experiments test hypothesis. Experiments must be methodical and repeatable. A scientist from the USA should be able to repeat with the same results an experiment from a Russian scientist using the same methodology.
Science is never settled. If anyone says that “X is settled science” X ceases to be science (if it met the criteria above) and becomes religious dogma. Science is ALWAYS open for debate, differing opinions and challenges. If your theory is correct, you should not have to worry about a challenge to it.
Evolution meets none of the criteria for science. Therefore it should not be taken seriously by anyone. Honestly, evolution is the most debunked idea in history. The origin of the first cell refutes evolution off han
Locked
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:10amWhat a complete fail of a title. Archaeopteryx was never “the first bird,” it shares most of its characteristics with dinosaurs, and only a couple with what we think of as modern birds. The only people calling it a bird (period) are creationists who will not admit a species can share characteristics with another. Everyone else calls it what it is: a species with characteristics of both a bird and dinosaur.
The article itself is interesting, mostly because it discusses the issues with classifying newly discovered species that share characteristics (so called transitional species). I think it’s more telling that the Chinese are at the forefront of changing these things, it seems.
But yeah, the title is a complete fail. It’s not a bird at all; it’s a species with a few bird-like features but a majority of dinosaur features.
Report Post »Jack of Hearts
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:24am@Locked. An intelligent and thoughtful post, especially as you have expressed so clearly the characteristic of transitional species. I would warn you however, that most Blaze readers still believe that Darwin’s writings on the origin of species are some form of satanic plot to debunk the bible rather than an attempt to understand our world. Anticipate abuse.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:55amHey Blaze, that picture of a fossil isn’t of archeopteryx. It looks like a pterosaur, often refered to as a pterodactyl.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:03amI see that the photo is labled wrong in the original story, and cited as coming from NASA(?). What does NASA have to do with paleotology? Regardless. It isn’t archeopteryx. Anyone who has any aqaintance with that species should recognize the diiference between that fossil and one of archeopteryx. The length of the beak is too long.
This is archeopteryx:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XrBnrpXNVuA/TKtSSGlH30I/AAAAAAAACco/o2S1XvRzgM0/s1600/archeopteryx++S.jpg
Report Post »SpeaknUp
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:54amJust because something has been “firmly established” doesn’t make it true. Darwinism is a religion, and evolution its highest tenant: “There is no God, therefore evolution must be true. Now let’s try to figure out how it must have happened.” If I’m going to believe in something, I’d rather believe in the God of the Bible — it has a lot more going for it.
Report Post »TxSon
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:32amEvolution and belief in God are mutually exclusive. I get very frustrated by people who want to limit God to their own puny understanding of the universe. Why do you think evolution can‘t be part of God’s design?
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:48am“Why do you think evolution can‘t be part of God’s design?”
Er…Genesis?
It depends on how you define “evolution.” If you mean life evolved from a single celled organism, crawled up out of the oceans, formed legs and lungs, became a monkey in a tree that then turned into a college professor…Then that is totally against the Bible in so many ways I would not know where to begin. There is also no reason to believe such fairy tales as there is 0 (zero) evidence of this except for the insane imaginings of man.
If, however, you define “evolution” as the gradual adaptation of a species then sure…It goes on every day. There is no question or argument about this.
Report Post »Jack of Hearts
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:56am@Trolltrainer. There is also no reason to believe such fairy tales as there is 0 (zero) evidence of this except for the insane imaginings of man. Er, Genesis.
Report Post »Erabin
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:48am“There is also…”
*cough*
There is a lot of evidence for Evolution. Mountains, even. Please don’t make it sound as if there is just as much proof for evolution as there is for creation (none) because these people here would quickly latch onto something like that.
But otherwise, I agree. Even if evolution were wrong, that wouldn’t mean that creationism is right.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:54am“@Trolltrainer. There is also no reason to believe such fairy tales as there is 0 (zero) evidence of this except for the insane imaginings of man. Er, Genesis.”
—————————————————————–
Fair enough! I would be happy if we could all accept this as the status quo. No one is asking you to believe in God, do not ask me to believe in evolution.
However, I would suggest there is actually much more “proof” for accepting biblical creation than there is for accepting evolution. I could approach it from a few different angles, but let’s just use the fact that Jesus of Nazareth endorsed the book of Genesis, along with the rest of the OT as the Word of God. Jesus also claimed He was God. He did many miracles to support this claim and He had many followers. The Jews never disputed the miracles He preformed, in fact, they confirm them in their writings. Jesus was crucified for His claims and was buried in a tomb. This tomb was guarded by Roman centurions. 3 days later that body was gone! Just like Jesus told the disciples while He lived. Who took it? The Romans? The Jews? Naw, that is impossible. They wanted to squelch this new religion, not encourage it. The disciples themselves are the only possibility. Yet they not only claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, hundreds saw Him at one appearance, the twelve apostles went to horrific deaths when they could have simply denied what they were preaching.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:03amNow, many people have died for a lie. But not knowingly! You do not give your life for something you know is false. Not unless you are insane. Maybe one or even two apostles were. But all of them…except John, who suffered greatly himself? I think not. They knew what they had seen. It was worth dying for, even being tortured and put through great pain. Jesus claimed to be God and the disciples were convinced those claims were true. They believed. Jesus also claimed Genesis was true. I believe Him.
But beyond that, a Christian’s personal experience of salvation is proof enough for me. I do not ask you to buy into it, yet every born again Christian will tell you they had a distinct conversion. They will tell you that the Holy Spirit abides within them and that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This tells us that He really is who He claims to be. As God, He would not give us a lie to live by. Maybe we misinterpret Genesis, I will allow that possibility. Maybe it is meant to be allegory. Yet nothing suggests this. Where does the story end and the truth begin? Noah’s flood? Tower of Babel? Abraham? Joseph? No, it is all presented as history. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Can prove it to you? Nope. Don’t much care to either. But do not feed me your trash either.
Report Post »schmite123oh
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:48pm@trolltrainer, yes sir anytime society offers input to question The Truths of the bible all i have to say to myself is 12 people did not knowingly die for a lie. End of conversation. I praise God and all the evidence that he has given us to proclaim his glory. Just look at everything around you, it all screams for the need and truth of 1 great Creator the living God. A goos start people is to get ou convictions squared away with what Jesus means to you or how you feel about him, then go from there to test that belief/conviction. I suggest “Evidence that demands a verdict” by Josh McDowell is a good place to start. May God Bless!
Report Post »Apple Bite
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:46amThe problem with today’s scientists: It’s either this or that, there is no in between. And here we have a dinosaur that possibly bridged the gap between the bird and lizard…..
Report Post »Xxoax
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:41amHalf man Half eagle half raptor all super badass!!!
Report Post »Wyd Stantz
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:41amFirst Pluto and now this?!?! What’s next, Obama was really born in Kenya?
Report Post »OneRepublic4us
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:07amThanks for the laugh!!
Report Post »I needed it after I found out that the Moon’s dark side is not synonymous with far side. You learn something new everyday.
http://earthsky.org/tonight/moon-saturn-regulus
Wyd Stantz
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:39amFirst Pluto and now this? What’s next, Obama is really from Kenya?
Report Post »ArgumentumAdAbsurdum
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:49pmStrange, you guys ever get deja vu. I have this weird feeling that I’ve read this comment before.
Report Post »Arkonviox
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:34amThis doesn’t prove evolution, the bible says ask not what god can do but what you can do for god.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:14amEvolution has never been disproved yet, as all testing of it have been proven true so far. So… not sure what you point is.
And your quote? Wow. No, it doesn’t. You’re taking a quote from JFK and applying Biblical principles (service to God) to it.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 8:55amEvolution is disproven at every turn! You cannot show it, replicate it, or even explain it. It is merely fantasy. There are so many problems with the theory that even secular scientists are turning away from it. It has gotten so bad in evo fields that they have finally conceded that life could not have started on this planet and they have to turn to astronaut theory to advance their ramblings.
Of course you do not believe this because you were taught differently. They told you in school that evolution was fact and I bet you even watch Discovery Channel and Natl. Geo…
Look into it friend. Go to the scientific journals themselves. It is nothing but a clown show. Dinos did not evolve into birds, just the respiratory system alone is so different it precludes evolution.
Report Post »saranda
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:29amPretty sure you paraphrased JFK.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:39am@Troll
“Evolution is disproven at every turn! You cannot show it, replicate it, or even explain it.”
Report Post »You are wrong. It has been observed, tested, and duplicated; it cannot be a scientific theory if this hasn’t happened. Biological organisms change over generations.
Erabin
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 9:44am“Evolution is disproven at every turn! You cannot show it, replicate it, or even explain it.”
Oh, it’s opposite day?
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:20amThe problem here is you try to use the term “evolution” to define adaptation. We have covered this ground already. If you could show one species evolving into another then there would be no question it was right. It would not be a theory. You cannot show one “kind” turning into another because it is genetically impossible. You are grasping at straws with mutations but any rational scientist will assure you that mutations are not enough to move life from a single-celled organism to a human, even in 4 billion years. Not enough time. The Cambrian Explosion screws your theory here. So much so that you had to rethink things and come up with Punctuated equilibrium. There are so many problems with this theory that the Phyletic Gradualism camp has even made fun of it.
Nope, you have no proof. Notta. You cannot show any specimen making appreciable gains in genetic material, to the contrary, science shows that animals LOSE genetic material when they adapt. They breed traits OUT, not in. Science goes AGAINST evolution. Yet you keep grasping at straws…
Better you than me! I will stick with God, thanks anyway. :-)
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:38am@Troll
Looks like someone else reads Jonathan Wells, huh? :-) The Cambrian Explosion was indeed a dramatically increased amount of evolution compared to the period before it… but that rate has remained relatively the same ever since. Wells is wrong in claiming that it disproves evolution – it in fact provides ample evidence that evolution happened. This species in question is actually a perfect example of a transitional species containing characteristics of two distinct species.
“The problem here is you try to use the term “evolution” to define adaptation. ”
Report Post »No, the problem is you’re using your own definitions instead of scientific ones. Adaptation primarily involves behavior; evolution involves biology. Adaptation can happen within a lifetime; evolution happens over hundreds, thousands, millions of generations. Your issue seems to be that you don’t understand evolution.
trolltrainer
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:14amLocked writes:
“No, the problem is you’re using your own definitions instead of scientific ones. Adaptation primarily involves behavior; evolution involves biology. Adaptation can happen within a lifetime; evolution happens over hundreds, thousands, millions of generations. Your issue seems to be that you don’t understand evolution.”
——————————————————————–
Oh, I got it! You are right, my apologies. My degrees are in theology and religion, I only had undergrad classes in the sciences…
So thank you for clearing this up, I think we actually agree on this! I have stated several times that there is no doubt that a “species” or what I prefer to call a “kind” will…evolve, right?…over a period of time by LOSING genetic material. A herd of animals moves from the savannah to the forest and the genetic code for spot camouflage becomes dominant and the ability to produce anything except offspring with spots causes the loss of other genetic traits. Yeah, I agree. So that is what you call “evolution?” Okay, I can buy into that…
I am relieved, because for a second there I though you were saying there was proof of one kind actually turning into another! Yeah, I know, that is stupid! Of course there is no proof of this because it cannot happen. Cows do not become whales, monkeys do not become humans, dinos do not become…birds…
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:17am“This species in question is actually a perfect example of a transitional species containing characteristics of two distinct species.”
Damn, that DOES clinch it!!! I am sorry I doubted!
Not like most species do not have…eyes. Most mammals have…hair…Shoot, we really MUST be related to bananas…We have skin too…
Report Post »hi
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:30amLocked said “You are wrong. It has been observed, tested, and duplicated; it cannot be a scientific theory if this hasn’t happened. Biological organisms change over generations”
Evolution has not been observed, tested, and duplicated! That is why it isn’t a scientific fact. Take for example the fruit fly. Scientists have irradiated it, used chemicals on it, and other methods to help speed up its mutations for decades and hundreds of millions of generations. BUT, it’s still a fruit fly. The mutations didn’t stick and make it better or turn it into a new species.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:34am@Troll
“Not like most species do not have…eyes. Most mammals have…hair…Shoot, we really MUST be related to bananas…We have skin too…”
You‘re making a good example of this article’s point. It’s tough to differentiation what makes a unique species a “species.” Is it the ability to breed? Specific characteristics? For example, the genus of mammals is usually differentiated from other genera by giving birth to live young, nursing their offspring, being warm-blooded, having a backbone, and being covered in fur, skin, or hair. However, the duck-billed platypus, God’s personal joke in nature, lays eggs but is still considered a mammal.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:38am@Hi
“Evolution has not been observed, tested, and duplicated! That is why it isn’t a scientific fact.”
Sure it has. It is indeed a fact, in both meanings of the word: it has been observed through changes in biological traits of a population successive generations, and that it is almost universally accepted by scientists as truth. It’s a theory in that it ascribes to scientific testing and has never been disproven (ie, it’s only been proven thus far).
I think your problem is also a complete lack of understanding of basic scientific terms, including “fact,“ ”theory,“ and ”evolution.” It seems to be pandemic in these comments.
Report Post »hi
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:41amLocked
Report Post »Changes in traits is NOT evolution…an upward movement. It is a lateral movement. For example, a man with blond hair isn’t better than a man with brown hair. They just have different traits. Nor are they different species. They are both human.
Evolution is one species turning into another, not changing traits.
Locked
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:51am@Hi
“Evolution is one species turning into another, not changing traits.”
Report Post »Seems I was right.
hi
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 11:58amLocked
Report Post »One species turning into another doesn’t happen.
Transitional species are not in the fossil record.
The archpteryx is a hoax. (see earlier comment from MIT doc)
We should should find millions of inbetween species, not one questionable one which has shown to be a fraud.
Millions of inbetween species should exist since we have 5 million or so different distinct species.
Locked
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:06pm@Hi
As for the hoax part that you, your CSC source does not list themselves as an MIT doctor: could you give me a name, and what exactly their degree is in? I’d love to look up more.
There have been other fossil hoaxes, but Archaeopteryx is not one of them.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:30pmI believe Hi might be referring to Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. No one disputes Archaeopteryx is real, there is more than one specimen that is preserved perfectly, right down to the feather detail. It was simply a bird; a bird that is 20 MILLION years OLDER than the “feathered” dinos it was supposed to have evolved from…It is simply a bird with teeth, fingers, and a long tail which are traits seen in other Aves….A rose by any other name…
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 5:55pm@troll I find it assuming ID/creationists like to use the speculation and conundrums from the mouths of experts in the fields to dismiss either gradualism or punctuated equilibrium… If these inexplicities were such a destructive rational for pursuing discovery and evidence to test evolutionary hypotheses then why is the field quite alive? People throw out numbers like pah.. 3 billion or 50 million years just wouldn’t be enough time.. like they can conceive of such a time frame in this design space we call “the wild” ..do me a favor, stack a million pennies up and try to imagine how much time that would be if each penni is a year.. after you do that multiply that by 1000… you cannot conceive of how much time that is and how many events can happen within that time frame to select in or out…
Report Post »chazman
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:27amHalf raptor, half eagle … bad azz.
Report Post »Bullhorn Guy
Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:36pmUh…eagles are raptors.
You shouldn’t get all of your science from Jurassic Park. There are other sources.
Report Post »