Although you know I have a Masters degree in Science in another field this is not my expertise. I virtually know almost nothing about birds although God gave me excellent logical thinking and I rarely jump to wrong conclusions. And my stance is I believe God is correct and the science is wrong if it contradicts with the Bible. And it appears that it does. However science changes all the time so there will be new developments I am sure, that will be more supportive of the Bible.
There is still a debate about the dinosaurs and bird relationship among scientists right now. Maybe they weren't flying dinosaurs at all but birds and then God and the Bible is right after all. Maybe they just throw "dinosurs" in the mix to say "see God didn't create birds first but dinosaurs. So Maybe dinosurs really came after birds after all.
"Currently, the relationship between dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx, and modern birds is still under debate." it says in the wickapedia.
What I find interesting from reading Genesis 1 again, is that God put seeds on the earth on the 4th day and if birds were created first with the ocean life on the 5th day it makes sense since they could eat the seeds.
I think the evolutionists had to come up with a solution and working overtime to prove the Bible wrong. Their assumption about birds evolving later than the Bible stated is just one example to prove the Bible wrong, and I am sure you can state many more right?
Also There are some fossil scientists that actually support the the Bible and say that there are fossils of ocean life that seem to be the oldest fossils in the world. Which supports the Bible account that God created the sea life first on the 5th day. Trilobite was in the ocean and is the oldest fossil. Another of the oldest fossils, the Pikaia, from a virtabrae anscestor is maybe actually now they say an ocean animal and swam like an eel. They found it on Pika peak, a mountain in Alberta, Canada. How did it get up on a peak? Well Noah's flood of course I think. Super interesting to read about these fossils. "Oldest.Org"
[quote]There is still a debate about the dinosaurs and bird relationship among scientists right now[/quote]
There actually isn't. There was about 25 years ago but at this point the scientific consensus is solid. Modern birds evolved from dinosaurs. Perhaps you're thinking of the debates which still take place in the field over the correct placement and relationship of lineages. Was group x actual a basal ancestor of birds or did its lineage actually not result in birds. AS for the overarching principle that birds evolved from dinosaurs and in fact technically [i]are[/i] dinosaurs no, i'm afraid you've been misinformed. [quote]"Currently, the relationship between dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx, and modern birds is still under debate." it says in the wickapedia. [/quote] A perfect example where i think your confusion lays. There is a question about whether archaeopteryx evolved into modern birds or if it should more properly be classified as a bird itself but there is no dispute in the paleontological community about birds coming from dinosaurs. "The present scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that originated during the Mesozoic Era" same wikipedia article as far as a i can tell.
[quote]Maybe they weren't flying dinosaurs at all but birds and then God and the Bible is right after all[/quote]
I'm glad you're trying to make scripture fit with established science but i'm afraid this doesn't get us any closer. Even if animals like microraptor were birds they still have arrived in the fossil record [i]long[/i] after the first land animals by something like 400 million years. Maybe a bit less.
[quote]I think the evolutionists had to come up with a solution and working overtime to prove the Bible wrong[/quote]
I think that's a pretty facile rationalization for the reason science doesn't support the bible. It's not because the bible is inaccurate, it's because scientists are out to prove the bible wrong and are willing to make stuff up to do so. To me that strays into conspiracy theory. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories.
[quote] there are fossils of ocean life that seem to be the oldest fossils in the world [/quote]
Well that's entirely in keeping with evolution theory as well. Life began in the ocean and trilobites are certainly among the earlier organisms to have fossilized.
[quote] How did it get up on a peak?[/quote]
Well you'd be better off asking a geologist for a specific answer but the way ancient sea beds end up high and try is well known. Tectonic action where huge plates of land grind up against eachother through tectonic drift forcing one layer down and one layer up. that's how (non volcanic) mountains are formed. If the layer that was pushed up used to be at the bottom of the ocean then you're going to find the fossils of sea creatures up on that mountain.
@Pikachu Interesting Stuff for sure. I think what you're saying is not at all the established conclusion of all scientists. I am very happy to find so much collaboration with the Bible regarding the sea animals, and surprised some creatures they thought were land animals are actually from the sea.
There was a world flood, and it makes perfect sense we find sea shells all over the world on mountains including sea creatures on mountain tops, Wow! I am shocked. Now it has peaked my curiousity to do more research about fossils. I might just become a fossologist 馃槈
[quote] I think what you're saying is not at all the established conclusion of all scientists.[/quote]
lol well i don't think i'd ever claim that [i]anything[/i] is the conclusion of [i]all[/i] scientists. But the scientific consensus is indeed that the evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs is undeniable.
[quote]There was a world flood,[/quote]
There's actually not good evidence to support a [i]global[/i] flood and it's certainly not compatible with the fossil record. If it were, we'd see all manner of animals mixed together in the same layers and yet we find this clear delineation.
I feel like you're ignoring the fact that i just gave the scientific explanation for how sea creature fossils appear on mountains lol. But that's cool, you investigate! Become a paleontologist! Bad news: you're going to have to take a bunch of boring earth science classes before you get into the cool stuff.
@Pikachu I am not actually going to take any more classes, phew 馃檹...except my yearly CEU classes for work. Although those classes wouldn't be boring. You know a lot about fossils and I am sure you have the latest science research, and like to keep up the research. You could get a PHD? I am not ignoring your science but you have a lot more faith in their research than I do. that's all.
My projects for now is to write a grant for work, and finish a books, but I will take your advice and read more about fossils. It is so interesting. Why isn't there more hours in the day? Well I probably wouldn't be able to stay awake anywho.
24 hours in a day is just right considering we need rest. Isn't God amazing? He makes everything perfect, huh?
[quote]you have a lot more faith in their research than I do[/quote]
I think i would quibble on that term and characterize it as trust. And i trust that research because of the very nature of science, the thing which you distrust: it's self correcting. There are always people doing new studies and testing new hypothesis. So when the scientific consensus still points to the same answer after decades of being challenged, it suggests that it is correct. We might find out that the earth doesn't orbit the sun. We might find out that bacteria don't cause disease and we might find out that evolution doesn't explain the diversity of life...but it's vanishingly unlikely. It's been tested in the crucible of science which is a brutal taskmaster and it has come out on top. That says a lot.
Sounds cool! Keep it up. By finish books do you meaning reading them or writing them?
[quote]24 hours in a day is just right considering we need rest. Isn't God amazing? He makes everything perfect, huh? [/quote]
lol what? I don't get this? What if it took the earth 36 hours to complete an orbit or 20? Would we not still be getting rest?
[quote]No I would get sick because I only sleep when I have to. I would stay up 30 hrs and sleep 5 and that would be too exhausting![/quote]
lol that makes no sense. You could just as well say that with our current system you'd stay up for 20 hours and sleep for 4. Besides, our natural sleep cycle is not actually sleeping for many hours at once. It's a sleep, wake up, sleep, wake up cycle within the 24 hour period. Sleep schedule is what you decide. I recently went from working early morning to evening to working evening to early morning. And tomorrow i've got to switch back! lol Sorry, this just doesn't seem to be an argument for god's design to me.
[quote]I am writing a book. Are you going for a PHD? You would make a good teacher? [/quote]
Wicked! If you finish let me know so i can read it!
I'm deffs not going for a PHD but i would make a good teacher. I'm good at teaching at least in an unofficial capacity.
