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?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
@suzie1960 theres to much emphasis on reasoned sequence, on direct casuality. Yeah, yeah i get it, thats important to the scientific method but maybe if you all just took LSD just once, youd get that reality is just the part of the echo chamber that makes the least echoey sound.
@newjaninev2 see, thats what im talking about right there; you have a compartmentalised world view, which is fine and probably good if youre a teacher trying to explain stuff or your trying to formulate a strategy to attain a certain goal, but beyond that, everythings interconnected
@newjaninev2 look maybe someone smarter and more eloquent than me might be able to explain it better than me but if i had to sum it up, yeah im basing all this on stuff i cant actually prove its just sometimes Atheists seem to make global assertions based on tiny bits of data and maybe they should take a step back and have a wider focus.
@Jm31xxx [quote]just sometimes Atheists seem to make global assertions based on tiny bits of data[/quote] Can you give an example? I suspect you're misunderstanding something.
@suzie1960 They original post asks why did a creature earlier in its evoulutionary trajectory have a certain feature......now thats kinda squinting real hard to focus on a bit of data and then ....and this is the part that sort of jars....they use the data to ask questions of Gods descion making process.....as if Gods some person who decided to take an umbrella out on a sunny dayor something.
BTW (maybe i should have mentioned this), im not a creationist and I believe most Believers arent, but maybe they are in some parts of the world like Texas or other places that arent culturally sophisticated.
@Jm31xxx [quote] They original post asks why did a creature earlier in its evoulutionary trajectory have a certain feature......now thats kinda squinting real hard to focus on a bit of data and then[/quote] It's an important bit of data. There are similarities that can be explained by evolution. The question is, can they be (better) explained by "creation".
[quote]they use the data to ask questions of Gods descion making proces[/quote] You're presuming the "god" is real. Now that's a global assertion if ever there were one. What data is that based on?
@suzie1960 ok this is a bit circular right? A fundamental tenet of believe is faith while a core requirement of scientific endeavour is evidence. Even if i was the smartest person in the world there is literally nothing i can say to convince you.
@Jm31xxx I´m not an atheist but NEITHER a creationist AT ALL. Creationits may have a sophisticated worldview, but, seriously, not a serious one.
The Ptolemaic System (that endured about 700 years as mainstream view) was a highly sophisticated and even rigurous piece of math. It´s only problema was being factually false.
@Jm31xxx [quote].they use the data to ask questions of Gods descion making process.[/quote]
Sorry, i think you've missed the point. This isn't me asking why a being did something. This is me starting a discussion about the relative explanatory power of evolution vs creation when accounting for certain evidence.
[quote]Remember, there are no such people that are atheists. the only ones around are skeptics lying 6 feet under their headstones.[/quote]
Wrong.
An atheist is someone who does not believe or disbelieves in the existence of a deity. Many such living people exist. No matter how you attempt to twist the meaning of the word (and you must, since no definition supports your assertion) it does not make atheists any less of a real thing.
Oh, you'd like to say that people replace god in their lives with false idols like money or sex or pride? Fine. But those people still do not believe that those things are deities.
You can keep repeating this facile bit of rhetoric if you like but you consistently fail to make any meaningful attempt to substantiate it.
