How does creation answer this? It's the scientific consensus that modern birds evolved directly from theropod dinosaurs. [Spirituality & Religion]
We even know now that many or even most theropod dinosaurs had some form of feathers. What they also had were clawed forearms, some of which turned into wings.
We see those same forearm/wing claws on some modern birds like the emu, the cassowary and the hoatzin.
This makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective since modern birds evolved from dinosaurs but how does creation explain it? Why did god make two different "kinds" of animal with such startlingly similar anatomy when some of them don't even [i]use[/i] that anatomy?
@hippyjoe1955 Consensus is not a prove. Right. And there is something very special that rules Science: changes are caused by new factual evidence. And if believe change needs to be validated by factors external to this or any kind of authority, it would be else but no more Science. So even if consensus in Science is a week argument by itself, at least includes the oppinions of those who put evidence, old or new, above their own believes. And excludes the preassure of subordinating Science to other factually weaker and own agenda driven worldviews.
I find it weird that creationists don't belive something simple like this but will believe in something infinitly more complex like a God. If you can't explain something simple how do you explain something infinitly more complex.
@suzie1960 well at least we can agree to disagree amblicly I actually know where you are coming from, as I often find myself at odds with contemporary modern Christianity. Many of thier attitudes are as unchristian as their teachings are.. I try to respect a person’s views whether I agree or not, but I also expect the same from them. However I will not tolerate when people openly call out my belief as absurd and ignorant and openly mock it through a premis of “debate”.. NoNe of you people know for sure and from my view, your positions are as absurd and ignorant as you think mine are, that is the point I was making in response to this post
@Deadcutie [quote]I try to respect a person’s views whether I agree or not, but I also expect the same from them.[/quote] I do the same. I respond with the same courtesy my opponent shows me.
@newjaninev2 If you get the merely appearance of a meaningfull answer from those guys, I promisse to give a call to my ex wife for her next coming birthday.😁
I find it easier to believe in creation than in everything that had to happen perfectly for us to exist happening just by chance. If you calculate the statistics it’s staggering.
The fact is that your argument from incredulity is nothing more than a logical fallacy. Even at BEST it does nothing to prove that a god exists and certainly not the particular god you imagine is real.
What's more, your application of this logical fallacy does not excuse you from responding meaningfully to questions like the one raised in this thread.
An excuse is an excuse, joe. Not an argument, not a discussion and not a rebuttal.
Until you find yourself capable of answering a straight question with rational discussion, why should any of us take you seriously?
@awhitedot There it is, again, the false dichotomy, setting the debate in the wrong axis. The opposite of (only) chance is NOT "purpose" as design and agency. It is, instead, the intrinsic properties of the material world as things in itselves. So to persist as for change. So as discrete entities as related tho other ones. Scientific laws are only the intellectual correlate of intrinsic physical laws. They first ones are only aproximate, incomplete and subject to update. And still the best description of the material universe we have as a species. The last ones, intrinsic physical laws, don´t deppend on any subjectivity. They´ve worked fine for thousands million years previous to any concivable mind.
Probability (a priori), statistics (a posteriori) are human tools. The ones that may or not convince us. But things could care less on what we believe to be like they are.
Again, the "if it´s not by chance it means design" is, at best, naive ignorance. I would not give the benefit of naivety to those arguments that focus on subordinate Science as a way to subordinate people´s freedom to think, choose and do.
It's not a scientific consensus, it's not even a hypothesis. Theropod dinosaurs were theropod dinosaurs and modern birds are modern birds. No birds evolved from dinosaurs.
@Bushranger Yes indeed... if we continue such morally corrupt and indefensible practices we might well allow understanding and reality to break loose, and who knows where [i]that[/i] might lead!?
@newjaninev2 Oh no! Understanding and reality! The end times are indeed upon us. Quick, let us pray to our Gods Darwin, Wallace and Dawkins. May they save us from eternal ignorance.
@GodSpeed63 It´s not even an scientific hypothesis? Goodspeed, you need an update. There are a lot of ways to read the papers where serious scientists show their research about. As a minor but relevant example, go to Academia.edu. A site where people of science, hundred of thousands!, no matter their religious believes, debate this, whith no bias.
They don’t know, they are making guesses on what seems plausible based on fossils of which many are incomplete.. they change their guesses every other week it seems. T-Rex went from a ferocious hunter to a wimpy scavenger.. all based on its tiny arms and it’s teeth.. like seriously, they don’t know, they weren’t there....
@Deadcutie Science is full of squabbling, rancor, backstabbing, cheating, etc. Essentially, like the market, it's kept in check by regulations and philosophy, carrot and stick, perpetually doing the two steps forward, one step back routine, developing odd inefficiencies, pruning said inefficiencies, etc, etc. It's a very [i]human[/i] enterprise. If you think it's running poorly now, just go back a few centuries, and lmao.
But it goes on. And it [i]works[/i]. And it is the only game in town.
Why is it is seems that you are asking these questions as part of a homework assignment that you want help on ? figure it out yourself thats the only way you will learn. You are good though but apparently not very good in your science classes.
@MarmeeMarch |Yeah he is a source of great humor. He has several other stalwarts the believe the same. They love to do the circle jerk pretending they are all sciencey.
@Deadcutie That is more a statement on capitalism and the corporate-ization of academia. If the theoretical sciences were publically funded like the applied science of ... oh I don't know weapons systems? ... we wouldn't be having this discussion.
