What argumants would you give to support a Creationist's position that birds did not evolve from reptiles?
962220
There's a lot more evidence than that which ties dinosaurs and birds together.\n\nChemical makeup is not where the support for the "scales" of the dinosaur evolving into feather comes from. It comes from the fossilized outlines of feathers found surrounding certain fossils.\n\nThey share many skeletal features, including the shapes of their hips, a shape only found in dinosaurs and birds.\n\nThey shared very similar lung structures, which are a series of air sacs, very different than what we have.\n\nThey had four chamber hearts, again, much like birds have.\n\nCertain fossils have been found that suggest some dinosaurs slept like birds, with their heands tucked under their arms.\n\nThe use of gizzard stones was common between both species.\n\nThis is called convergence. Many different pieces of evidence that come together to support a claim. Is it airtight? Is it absolutely certain that birds evolved from dinosaurs? No. However, even if it isn't true, this is not an either/or choice. It does not mean that a god created them.\n\nOh, and birds didn't come from pterodactyls. In fact, pterodactyls aren't technically dinosaurs. The closest common ancestor between birds and dinosaurs would have come from the raptors.
715140
Let me preface my thoughts by stating that I am not an Evangelical Christian, so I have a broader interpretation of Christianity.  With that said, let me answer your questions.\n\n******\n"Do you not believe in EVOLUTION and SCIENCE?\n(dinosaurs, man came from the ape..etc)"\n\nEvolution and science are not necessarily contradictory to religion.  For example, evolution could be considered *how* the Divine created the "what."  This is my argument, as I do believe in both evolution and science, as well as the Divine.  There are many who denounce evolution saying that it is theory--it is not.  Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" (a term that was not coined by him) is theory, but opponents of evolution have lumped the two together.  While evolution is not simply "man came from the ape," it does lead us to observe microcosmic and macrocosmic changes in the world.  Theologically, evolution can be considered the "tool" the Divine used to create everything.\n\nIn general, religion can be considered to be similar to philosophy--both of which are humankind's attempt to, through mythology and ideology, understand the world in a way that is more meaningful than a scientific approach.  Actually, the science of today originated from philosophy and religion.\n\n******\n\n"Do you not think the bible is full of CONTRODICTIONS?\n(adam and eve were the only two people so where did everybody else come from)"\n\nOf course, but contradictions can be found in any field, including that of science.  There are three main problems that can be found with the Bible, though:\n\nFirst, the text was written over many years by a handful of people.  This could easily lead to contradictory content.  Of course, you must be sure what you are reading is correct, which leads to the next problem.\n\nSecond, the majority of the Bible has been transliterated, which means it was translated from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek/Latin to English/French/etc.  This means that much meaning has been lost.  The only way you can honestly say the Bible is full of contradictions is to read it in the original languages.  Much insight can be found by doing so.\n\nThird, the Bible is incomplete.  There are many "books" and documents that have not been included in the text.  This is due to the watchful eye of papal administration.\n\nI personally don't take too much stock in the stories of the Bible--they are simply written in the mythological/archetypal language of the human psyche.  They are wonderful stories and can speak to a person in very meaningful ways, but they are just stories.  It must be noted, however, that an increasing number of these stories are being backed-up by archaeological evidence.\n\n******\n\n"Do you not think its something that people choose to believe in in order to feel that life has meaning?"\n\nNot necessarily.  Unfortunately, there are many who "believe" in Christianity just because that is what their parents (or parental figures) believed.  All mythology (Christian mythology not excluded) speaks to our base understanding, which relies on symbols and archetypes.  All humans use myth to create their realities (Atheists not excluded).  These myths can be a Creator God, a Sacrificial God, Science, or no God at all--the same archetypes are there.\n\nSince pre-history, human beings have strived to better understand the world in which they live.  This brought meaning to their lives.  However, they have had many "tools" to accomplish this task, tools such as science, religion, mathematics, and philosophy.  Each of these tools were created to bring meaning and understanding to a person's life.
168592
Evolution - massive evidence.\n\nCreation - only has (incorrect) snipes at evolution, no physical evidence in it's favor.\n\nPeople interested in this question should check out the Index to Creationist Claims, which lists all know allegations that Creationists have made about evolution and why they are wrong.\n\nCreationist Claims are often built on a misunderstanding of science (the "2nd law of thermo says evo wrong", "there are no transitional fossils") or have picked up a single outdated study and ignored all more recent evidence (the "dust on moon means moon is young") or just invent their own science - with no evidence - to explain away the obvious (the "micro- vs macroevolution" bit).\n\nIt is also worth pointing out that Creationists always try to poke holes in evolution. Even if they were correct and our current understanding of evolution were wrong *that doesn't mean creationism is right*. There needs to be POSITIVE evidence - PHYSICAL evidence - in favor of Creationist ideas. And their just isn't anything. All they have are cheap shots against evolution.\n\n\nDon't get my wrong, if someone wants to believe in creationism, a 6,000 year old Earth, or the Earth is flat, that is perfectly fine with me. Its a free country. But don't come telling me these things are science unless you have scientific proof - physical evidence in favor of your theory.\n\nCheck it out!\n\n\nPostscipt - another common difficulty, a failure to understand the meaning of "theory" in science as oppsed to colloquial language. There is also the "germ theory" and Newton's "theory of gravity." So, are you skeptical of bacteria and gravity because they are "just a theory?"
729212
NO NO NO!!!\n\nThis is about science and the lack of divine intervention.  The reason the planet seems so perfectly balanced is because it had 4.6 Billion years to get here.  A lot can happen in the trial-and-error game in that amount of time.  The earth evolves, life evolves, the only thing that remains stagnent and vestigial is theism.\n\nWhat you proposed is non-science, it is not a testable hypothesis.  Evolution is a tried and true, uber-tested and passed law of life.\n\nEvery fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
482324
One of the arguments would be the lack of fossils for intermediate species. As there are many fish and reptiles fossils discovered, shouldn't there be at least some half fish-half reptile fossils as well?
1125165
noop, I dont belive in evolution
642658
I find it interesting how everyone ASSUMES the writer is religious just because he disagrees with evolutionary theory.  Actually, belief in God (yes, it's capatilized) is more reasonable than belief in no higher being.  See the gamble in philosophy: if there is a God and you believe you get your reward, if you believe and there is no God then the same thing happens to you that happens to everyone, if you don't believe and there is no God you have the same situation as above. Finally, if you don't believe and there is a God you're SCREWED - yes, that's the technical term).  \n\nEvolution is definitely NOT proven, in fact, I have not seen any convincing evidence for the theory and it has turned out to not be very predictive. Unlike the theory of Gravity, which has not had any evidence against it yet and therefore is a good theory, evolution is a bad theory because it does not explain the observed facts.  Yes, here comes the wailing about the fossil record, finches in the Galapagos, etc...\n\nConsider this for a minute:\nThe Miller Experiment produced a racemic mixture of amino acids whereas living systems take almost primarily L-amino acids.  It is also extremely difficult to produce polypeptides in the lab without the required enzymes.  Plus, it has been accepted that oxygen was in the early atmosphere.\n\nThere are no known transition forms in the fossil record (maybe the winged lizard which I don't know how to spell).  If Darwinian evolution occurred the fossil record should be full of transition forms, but it's not.  Instead, it is characterized by rapid appearance of fully-formed organisms (like the Cambrian explosion or the appearance of flowering plants).  This led to theories like puntuated equilibrium, which is just an evolutionary form of intelligent design/abrupt appearance.\n\nThere is not a single proven mechanism by which ANY biological system has formed from inorganic matter.  How did an eye form?  What about just a bacteria?  These are much more complex than previously thought and is not a "lower" organism.\n\nFinally, most (if not all) mutations are either harmful or have no affect on the organism due to junk DNA.  It is unlikely that the great diversity present at this time could have occurred due to accumulation of mutations.  The age of the earth as accepted by most scientists do not give enough time for this to have occurred (I think it's about 4 billion years or something like that).\n\nYou want to know why it is still taught?  It is a pseudo-religion of materialistic atheists and allows atheists to comfortably believe there is not a God.  This is the same reason why there was resistance to the helocentric model of the solar system depsite the accumulating evidence.  People liked the earth and our civilization having a special place in the universe.
725060
Whoa! slow down, there is fossil evidence a transition from reptiles and birds. Most famously Archeopteryx with reptilian skull, teeth, digits, claws, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, and mainly unfused bones, and a few bird traits like a wishbone, wings and feathers!! In older sediments, there are theropod dinosaurs with skeletal similarities to Archeopteryx. In younger sediments, there are several fossils with more birds-like traits, such as Sinornis and Shenzhouraptor and dozens more (wikipedia "fossil birds").\n\nFossils of scales and feathers are very very rarely preserved. Imprints of the Archeopteryx feathers are only preserved because the fossils are embedded in very rare, very fine limestone that used to be used in lithography. It is unreasonable to demand fossil evidence of a transition between scales and feathers. That said, there are several theropod fossils with feathers that have been recently discovered in a fine Chinese deposit, things like Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx and Beipiaosaurus.\n\nBut sure, every detail of the the transition from reptiles to birds isn't documented. Other than demanding an excessive amount of evidence, I really don't know what arguments you can use, I don't think there are any true ones. But you might find some convincing sounding ones on Creationist propaganda websites. It depends on your audience.
1157187
Your question is a very reasonable one --and brave, since you'll certainly get answers from religious zealots who have completely closed their minds.  Let me start by saying my *only* personal agenda is a search for the truth, no matter where it leads me.  Unlike many, I'm not here to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. \n\nThe short answer is that I doubt it's possible in this kind of forum to get into enough details to convince a confirmed *creationist* that humans evolved from simpler life forms.  But I hope to encourage an open-minded person to continue with their own research, and not be tempted by overly "easy" answers.   \n\nThe long answer (most of it written by me, some of it transcribed manually; none of it pasted)...\n\nI, too, was unclear about the evolutionary process for a long time.  While I'm not an expert (and *nobody* has *all* the answers) I think I can help you get to a place where it makes *sense* to you as it now does to me, since you appear to have an open mind.  (Agnosticism is good!)  \n\nAfter hearing people's arguments and questions for many years, I am convinced that there are six huge factors getting in the way of a general acceptance of the *overwhelming* scientific evidence for evolution.  \n\n1 - the common misconception that evolution claims apes or chimpanzees changed to human beings, and the perceived indignity -- and indignation -- that goes along with that idea... or with *any* suggestion that we evolved from a lower form.  It's nothing but ridiculous human arrogance!\n2 - the lack of human conception for the vast time life has had on Earth to evolve\n3 - the human temptation to rush things and jump to ridiculous (and therefore naturally hard to believe) conclusions.  Evolution involves not three or four steps, like fish to amphibian to ape to human!)... not hundreds, or even thousands of big, visible steps... but perhaps hundreds of millions of minute, subtle changes in a life form.  Remember, we have had the time!\n4 - the mistaken notion that creatures evolved because they "decided" to, or "wanted" to.  When we say, for example, that fish needed to absorb oxygen more efficiently from the water, so they evolved gills, that's not to imply it was a choice.  Evolution is about mutations... changes that were random from one generation to the next, over long periods of time.  Those changes that happened to be good for the creature meant that creature survived long enough to reproduce, which meant there would now be lots of little babies with that same feature.\n5 - a fearful and/or stubborn refusal to abandon faith in a Creator, since doing so might condemn the unbeliever to eternal suffering\n6 - It's just *easier* to think about a Creator.\n\nI know you want to see some details of our "life's path" to make sense of it, and I will provide that, below.  Just a bit more, first.\n\nThe central ideas of evolution are that all life shares a common ancestor, and that it has changed over time (obviously, if we are to explain getting from A to B).  While it's hard for many people to imagine the changes that would result in, for example, human beings from lifelessness, the first thing to keep firmly in mind is that we are talking about an *unimagineable* amount of time to play with... the earth having been around for some 4.5 billion years, as you said.\n\nUnderstandably, few people can appreciate how much a billion is.  Do you realize that roughly a billion *seconds* ago, "The Godfather, Part 2" was about to win the Academy Award for Best Picture?... that Richard Nixon was President of the U.S.?... that Hank Aaron had just broken Babe Ruth's record of 714 career home runs?  1974 was drawing to a close -- one billion seconds ago.\n\nIt's a lack of appreciation for this vast amount of time which, I think, makes people skeptical.  They wonder how, in any amount of time they can envision, an ape can c
1154023
That response from gimpalomg was kinda disrespectful. Evolution is a waste of time. It tries to disprove something that cannot be disproved. Evolution is baseless, unfounded and a big scientific hoax to sway believers into thinking that science answers such questions. Evolution is circular reason. You say the earth couldn't possibly be 10000 years old max, I ask why, u'd probably bring up some evolution based theory that attemot to explain away the truth, which is the bible, but for now, I won't be forcing those doctrines down ur throat =D. \n\nThibnk about the bible for a second. The flood would explain so many things that science fails to answer such as the extinction of dinasuars, they're too big to fit on an arc.  Bare in mind that dinasuars are simply reptiles we see tody except that everything had the ability to live longer, if you want to explore that theory look it up because I promised not to use circular reasoning. the flood would explain why fish remains are ound on every mountain peak. It would explain why there was a "nomadic" time period in that time. And sooo obvious to us, it would explain what the heck a huuuge arc is doing on mount Ararat, which by the way was picke dup by NASA satellites. It should be noted that the bible states that Noah's arc rested atop mount Ararat. \n\nLastly, Evolution should not be in text books. The theory is warped an d blown aout of proprtion. I believe there are six major theories that compose the entire science of evolution. Only 1 uno theory hasbeen proved. That theory is microevolution which states that some organisms have the power to make themselves evolve MINOR CHANGES i.e Darwin's discovery of natural selection (longer beaks vs. shorter beaks etc.). This is GREAT, sure, except that the other theories cannot be proven but some have been disproven, there's something they don't always include in text books. Macroevolution which is the level above Microevolution comprises of the theory that species make huge changes over time such as extra limbs, DNA changes etc, again, not proven, even disproven by "vestigial" organs... aren't we supposed to evolve by GAINING other parts, not losing them. Buut scioentiest insist on using vestigial organs as the tailbone... guess WHAT ppl, it's not vestigial; you try walking around without it then try calling ir vestigial ,it serves a purpose. &#92;\n\non to the whole age thing. The earth is more likely to be 10000 years max than millions. According to the evolutionary theory, dinasuars became extinct MILLIONS of years ago. How much time does it take for flesh to decompose? I'm thinking FAR less than a million years. Why then are red blood cells still being found in dinasuar remains? The best answer is that the earth could NEVER be nearly as old as we think it is. I also want to point out thaT the earth is usually dated by ratioactive dating, which, in itself, is VERY unreliable. Research Radioactive dating accuracy and find the fact. The dates are beyond the level of being off, scientists know this. All they do is find a formula which is closest to the actual date even if it is millions of years inaccurate. Don't believe me? Research it yourself. \n\nEvolution is something that has been put in textbooks to simply explain away religious doctrines they feel are impossible. If you do your research like I did, you will easly see that evolution is no more true than Roman mythology\n\nAnd one dangerous thing we seem to be doing. The bible is NOT all symbolic.  That is REALLY dangerous. If i told u that the wings of the eagle stretched far beyond my reach then went on to recap yesterdays events, would you beleive that all of what I said was symbolic. How symbolic can anything be. The bible is literal at times. If you want to read the prophecies in the bible about the establishment of Israel, the rebuilding of the temple, the aliance os powers against Israel and it literally being sur
742072
What is the creationist response to feathered dinosaurs?\n\nThey stick their head in the sand and repeat over and over, "I believe the Bible, I believe the Babble."
891014
As much as I want to believe my religion, I feel that the evolution theory is correct . If the bible was written incorrectly or abridged by the writer of genesis to not include dinosaurs, and the timeframe infered between Adam and Eve and the creation of the Earth were different, then it would be possible that both theories are correct.
453499
Cherryred64gto- "Dr." Dino has no real degree- it's an honorific title, but has no real validity as a real doctor who went to post-grad school, graduated, and received a sheep skin to prove they ARE a doctor.\n\nAs far as arguments "dr." dino makes, they are usually strawman, ad hominem, circular logic, or just plain errors of logic and reality.\n\nAlso, the term theory shouldn't be used disparagingly, like it's "just a theory" as if it is just someone's opinion or belief system. A theory is second to scientific law only in that it hasn't been proven wrong yet.\n\nAnd a scientific law has been proven to be universally acceptable to the scientific community. The Law of Gravity has been proven correct over and over again, both here on Earth and millions of light-years away, in other parts of our universe.\n\nA theory is a set of observations and evidence that supports an idea construct such as evolution or subatomic theory. (Subatomic as you say "so-called theory" makes it possible to construct the microchips that make your computer do what it does).\n\nA theory such as subatomic theory has some areas that we don't understand, but the lion's share of it we do, so when we completely understand the field of subatomic particles, it won't be a theory any more, but a scientific law. Just because we don't understand something, that doesn't make it false or incorrect- we just don't know enough about it one way or the other.\n\nOne good proof that the theory of evolution is a valid theory is the fact of the rapid change, or evolution, of microorganisms into drug-resistant strains of influenza "flu", tuberculosis "TB", and more recently, the mumps virus.\n\nDr. Dino uses oversimplistic language and seemingly obvious flaws in the theory of evolution to try to prove his point, but mud slinging proves nothing, and he brings nothing to the table that is useful- all he manages to do is confuse the issues and present opinion and assumptions as fact.
448028
Check out Ken Miller's testimony from the Dover, PA trial (link below) for examples of evidence supporting evolution.\n\nThere isn't scientific evidence supporting creationism, because it's not a scientific concept.  By definition, science encompasses things that can be tested.
37204
Neither creationism nor evolution can be proved 100% correct, but one proof of creationism is that the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of fossils (like an explosion of organisms- as explained in Genesis 1 with the six days of creation) instead of many "transitional forms" over millions and millions of years as evolution predicts. I don't know of any websites, but a book called "The Genesis Flood" was very helpful and also one called "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!" I happen to know this because I just had to do a paper on this very subject. Good luck!
684403
As a scientist, I try not to "believe" in something because it is appealing, but rather to consider the available evidence and use that information to reach a flexable conclusion that will change as additional information becomes available. Based on the available scientific evidence, I think it extremely likely that the principles underlying the theory of evolution are accurate. I therefore "believe" the theory of evolution, but not in the sense that one believes in God, but rather in the sense that I can assume it's true as necessary but I'm prepared to accept an alternate version of the theory or even to reject it if there is scientific evidence that is sufficient to warrent this change. \n\nHere's some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution:\n\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.  This is true.  However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.\n\n3. The fossil record.\n\nAlthough the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species.  There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.\n\n4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).\n\nI want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).\n\nThere are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).\n\n5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.\n\nCreationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument.  Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin.  It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.\n\nAny developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to cat embryos, but all three develop similar structures in the
291165
Yes. I am a firm creationist, and speak out against evoulutionists reguarly. \n\nGo to drdino.com for more info on how creation is supported by facts, and how evolution is supported by assumptions.