Creation vs. Evolution

[Cross Reference]

Have you ever wondered this:

Diving bird
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Diving birds are birds which plunge into water to catch fish or other food. They may enter the water from flight, as does the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), or they may dive from the surface of the water. More than likely they evolved from birds already adapted for swimming that were equipped with such adaptations as lobed or webbed feet for propulsion.

Foot-propelled diving birds[edit]
Some diving birds - for example, the extinct Hesperornithes of the Cretaceous Period - propelled themselves with their feet. They were large, streamlined, flightless birds with teeth for grasping slippery prey. Today, Cormorants (family Phalacrocoracidae), Loons (Gaviidae), and Grebes (Podicipedidae) are the major groups of foot propelled diving birds.

Wing-propelled diving birds[edit]
Other diving birds are wing - propelled, most notably the Penguins (Sphenisciformes), Dippers (Cinclus) and Auks (Alcidae).


Evolution cannot account for the diversity of any species nor their different means of surviving..

 

[Cross Reference]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Try harder. It isn't rocket science. Science can only test what it can hold in its hand. Opinions can only be presumed upon which a psuedo-science will do when it is against understanding contary to what they want to believe.

 

[gcthomas]

Science can only test what it can hold in its hand.

If that is what you think science is, then no wonder you are struggling in this discussion. :rotfl:

Please, unless you want to be relying on a private meaning of a common word, look up the definition of the word. See if you can find an authority who agrees with you.

 

[gcthomas]

Evolution cannot account for the diversity of any species nor their different means of surviving..

How do you want me to respond to a mere assertion like this? Do you have a link to a study to show that the diversification capabilities of evolution are unable to account for difference between duck species?

You should talk to some of the other creationists who insist that there has been massive and ultra-rapid diversification (a sort of hyper-evolution) since their Flood to avoid the impossibility of having members of each and every species on the Ark.

 

[Cross Reference]

How do you want me to respond to a mere assertion like this? Do you have a link to a study to show that the diversification capabilities of evolution are unable to account for difference between duck species?

You should talk to some of the other creationists why insist that there has been massive and ultra-rapid diversification (a sort of hyper-evolution) since their Flood to avoid the impossibility of having members of each and every species on the Ark.

Your game plan is full of assertions that speak of your correctness. In fact, you are drunk with them. You should feel comfortable with your replies.

 

[gcthomas]

Your game plan is full of assertions that speak of your correctness. In fact, you are drunk with them. You should feel comfortable with your replies.

Have you struggled, then, to find a single reference that thinks that science can only handle things you can hold in your hand?

I can understand why you would wish that claim should disappear into the shadows of the past and never be mentioned again.

 

[Rosenritter]

Has anyone here ever considered the makeup of a humming bird and how it is that evolution cannot account for it?

Bombardier beetles.

 

[Rosenritter]

Of course evolution can be tested, and it is tested daily. Right from the beginning, Darwin predicted the existence of ancestral human remains in Africa long before they were discovered. Evolution predicts that phylogenetic trees will have the same structure no matter what characteristics are measured, a prediction shown to be true again and again. A classic that has been given in this forum several times is that you'll never find rabbit fossils in, say, Jurassic strata. Find one and evolution is in trouble.

So where you find rabbits you declare it not Jurassic. Circular logic. Cannot be falsified. Not a good test.

What about evidence for coexistence of human and dinosaur?

 

[gcthomas]

So where you find rabbits you declare it not Jurassic. Circular logic. Cannot be falsified. Not a good test.

Find a rock stratum that is universally agreed to be Jurassic, or Carboniferous, whatever. Shouldn't be hard. Hunt about, find rabbit fossils. Evolution disproved. Easy.

What about evidence for coexistence of human and dinosaur?

Physical evidence of that would do it. Iffy cave paintings that could be dinosaurs if you squint just right, or perhaps birds, won't cut the mustard of course. Is there any clear evidence of coexistence that you can present?

 

[gcthomas]

Find a rock stratum that is universally agreed to be Jurassic, or Carboniferous, whatever. Shouldn't be hard. Hunt about, find rabbit fossils. Evolution disproved. Easy.


Physical evidence of that would do it. Iffy cave paintings that could be dinosaurs if you squint just right, or perhaps birds, won't cut the mustard of course. Neither will literature references to mythical creatures that might be cultural memories of dinosaurs which might really be imaginary creatures driven by the distant stories of the discovery of giant fossil bones.

Is there any clear evidence of coexistence that you can present?

 

[Rosenritter]

Find a rock stratum that is universally agreed to be Jurassic, or Carboniferous, whatever. Shouldn't be hard. Hunt about, find rabbit fossils. Evolution disproved. Easy.


Physical evidence of that would do it. Iffy cave paintings that could be dinosaurs if you squint just right, or perhaps birds, won't cut the mustard of course. Is there any clear evidence of coexistence that you can present?

Paluxy River.
Dinosaur tracks.
Human footprints.
Side by side. Same layer. Overlapped.
Game.
Set.
Match.
Braced for waves of denial.

 

[gcthomas]

Paluxy River.
Dinosaur tracks.
Human footprints.
Side by side. Same layer. Overlapped.
Game.
Set.
Match.

Are these the footprints that caused the Institute for Creation Research to withdraw author John D. Morris's book from the market, admitting that they are really dinosaur prints? This is what Morris has to say about them:

The colorations were hardly visible, if at all, in earlier days, and we had mistakenly interpreted the vaguely human-like shapes as being of human origin.

ICR responded with integrity and pulled my book off the market, as did Films for Christ with their documentary film. The tracks in question were more likely poorly formed dinosaur tracks, random erosion marks, or deliberate alterations to the original tracks. We looked diligently for evidence of foul play, but as yet no direct evidence of evolutionary fraud has been uncovered. Christians respect the truth, and the truth is, the tracks are too ambiguous to make a clear determination. ICR holds rigorously to the view that dinosaurs lived at the same time as man, but feels that the Paluxy may not provide useful evidence for this. Others hold different views, and ICR encourages them to continue searching for evidence that could convince a skeptic. Meanwhile, we continue to study.

If this is the best you can do, then this will be a rather short debate.

 

[Rosenritter]

Except I've seen the pictures, and those weren't poorly formed tracks, and those tracks were visible when they first peeled back the rock layers. Nice try, but a recantation from one person doesn't actually erase the evidence. I don't see you recanting when an evolutionist reverses his opinion, do I?

As an aside, why do you yourself set a limitation that "dinosaurs plus humans at same time" would be death to your theory? That seems like a totally unnecessary limitation. Plus you then have issues to deal with like dinosaurs on Roman artifacts, Babylonian writings, Inca carvings, the carcass that washed up on the California Beach that was on the cover of Skin and Diver magazine, so on and so forth. This wouldn't be the first time that evolutionists would have to backtrack and say "Guess it survived for millions of years" like with the live coelacanth.

 

[Jose Fly]

There's this special skill I have, called reading. Check the posted article yourself.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
[FONT=&]
"Captured lizards were transported to a field laboratory and measured for snout-vent length, head dimensions and body mass. Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste."
[/FONT][FONT=&]
Of course I probably shouldn't trust it since it came from an evolutionist site. [/FONT]

This is where understanding the subject matter comes in handy (especially if you've deemed yourself qualified to evaluate it).

Had you bothered to click the link to the actual paper at the bottom of that news article, you would have realized that (as Thomas already explained to you) the genetic analysis they're referring to involved mitochondrial DNA, not nuclear DNA.

I suggest you do a bit of studying to get up to speed on these things before attempting to debate them. Now, normally I wouldn't mind helping you learn a bit, but you've already deliberately ignored sooooooo much of what I and others have posted to you, it's clearly not worth the time.

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolution is of an unscientific origin. Why?, because it can't be tested. . . . only conjectured.

Except for that pesky little fact that it's observed.....every single day. Other than that.....

 

[gcthomas]

Except I've seen the pictures, and those weren't poorly formed tracks, and those tracks were visible when they first peeled back the rock layers. Nice try, but a recantation from one person doesn't actually erase the evidence. I don't see you recanting when an evolutionist reverses his opinion, do I?

As an aside, why do you yourself set a limitation that "dinosaurs plus humans at same time" would be death to your theory? That seems like a totally unnecessary limitation. Plus you then have issues to deal with like dinosaurs on Roman artifacts, Babylonian writings, Inca carvings, the carcass that washed up on the California Beach that was on the cover of Skin and Diver magazine, so on and so forth. This wouldn't be the first time that evolutionists would have to backtrack and say "Guess it survived for millions of years" like with the live coelacanth.

The human/dino prints are rejected even by creationist research groups, so I don't think you can insist that they are incontrovertible evidence.

For all the others you list, pick the best and I'll take a look.

 

[Cross Reference]

Except for that pesky little fact that it's observed.....every single day. Other than that.....

Where can I go to see it that I might worship it?

 

[Jose Fly]

Where can I go to see it that I might worship it?

Go to just about any decent undergraduate BIO 101 class and you'll see them do lab experiments where they evolve resistant strains of bacteria (some even do genetic analyses).

As far as "worshiping"....when you're ready to behave like an intelligent adult let us know.

 

[Cross Reference]

Go to just about any decent undergraduate BIO 101 class and you'll see them do lab experiments where they evolve resistant strains of bacteria (some even do genetic analyses).

Naah! Why? Beause they have to put the necessary pieces together for anything to happen. LOL! I'll give you 2 outta 3. Try again.

As far as "worshiping"....when you're ready to behave like an intelligent adult let us know.

Oops! I'm sorry. How have I embarassed you that I might apologize?

 

[Jose Fly]

Naah! Why? Beause they have to put the necessary pieces together for anything to happen.

What the heck are you even talking about?

Oops! I'm sorry. How have I embarassed you that I might apologize?

Oh, I think you should keep going the way you are. You probably don't appreciate it, but you're doing a great job for our side. :thumb: