But what is a kind? Would you say that a grasshopper, a locust and cricket are all of the same kind?Order orthoptera, perhaps? But he bible tells us that the locust, bald locust, crickets and grasshoppers are each their own kind.
And what's to say that a "kind" does not change over time? If a population is geographically or reproductively isolated then over time they can diverge very drastically. Is a dinosaur a different "kind" than a bird or are they the same kind?
@Pikachu i take kind to mean species. i have not given it much study or prayer because it really does not interest me. nor does your obviously cut up picture.
Species? So then a tiger is a different kind than a lion and a cheetah and a leopard and jaguar and...?
nor does your obviously cut up picture.
Don't be that way. You can not be interested in having a clear understanding of what you even mean by the biblical term you insist is the line but don't stoop to calling fossils fake. That's a microraptor. The fossil has been fractured but it hasn't been doctored. There are many specimens of it. In fact an actual fake called Archaeoraptor (proved to be a fake by paleontologists) was in part made up from microraptor fossils. You'll also have heard of archaeopteryx which also has several specimens. And there are more feathered, bird-like dinosaurs besides.
If you're not comfortable categorizing them into bird or dinosaur "kind" i don't blame you. In fact one of the surest ways to identify a transitional species is that creationists can't agree on which "kind" it belongs to😉
@Pikachu i have never called fossils fake. it looked like a badly drawn crumpled up thing.
have you heard of the archeologist who softened dino bones in water and the marrow could be carbon dated and was such younger than the postulated age of dinosaurs. it was on us 60 minutes. it's on youtube if you are interested
Oh my apologies. I thought you were calling it a fake. But at least you got to see several more specimens. Bird kind? Dinosaur kind? Creationists can't seem to agree which is rather telling.
Yes, you're thinking of a paleontologist by the name of Dr Mary Schweitzer who discovered "soft" tissue in a tyrannosaur leg bone. In fact it wasn't actually soft but had been mineralized and it was only after being treated by acid that it regained some elasticity. Creationists also tend to claim that there were blood cells within these vesicles but Dr Schweitzer's research shows that they are not. Just mineralized iron remnants if i recall. I mean that doesn't make the find any less amazing but it also doesn't overturn evolution or an old earth. In fact Dr. Schweitzer herself, while being a Christian, is more than a little pissed off that creationists leaped on this in an effort to prove young earth. After all, is it more likely that paleontology, geology, archaeology, and physics are all wrong...or is it more likely that we just learned something new about how and for how long soft tissue can be preserved?
To my knowledge it was not dated by her or any other paleontologist as younger than expected and a brief google search for that turned up nothing.
lol sorry, that was probably more than you wanted to hear but it's both an amazing find for science and a find that creationists all too often misrepresent so i'm fairly familiar with it.
All fossils will never transitional they are complete forms
What do you think a transitional fossil would look like then? Do you seriously expect to see it change form as you watch?
You god doesn't deal in anything as it doesn't even exist. I've alreadt proven that to the same standard as your "proof" that The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't live.
What is the definition of a transitional form? I know you don't think there are any so no need to repeat that. Just tell me what you think evolutionists would consider a transitional form.
