Originally Posted by RAM
So are these scientists morons, too? http://logosresearchassociates.org/team/
Why don't you enlighten us. Tell us exactly how bird wings evolved. Maybe you should get it peer reviewed while you're at it since "scientists" can't seem to agree on whether birds came from dinosaurs or not. And please spare me the Archaeopteryx fossil.
Black Archaeopteryx: One would think by now that everything that could be said about one of the world’s most famous fossils, Archaeopteryx, has been said already in the 150 years since its discovery. Opinion has swung back and forth about whether this feathered creature could fly. Now, PhysOrg reported, Ryan Carney and colleagues at Brown University, using a scanning electron microscope on a fossilized feather found in 1861, have determined that the flight feathers were black, and were 'identical to modern bird feathers down to the smallest detail' (see Carney say this in the embedded video interview). The melanosomes in the feathers that give the black color provide clues to answer one of the main questions about this creature: 'The color and parts of cells that would have supplied pigment are evidence the wing feathers were rigid and durable, traits that would have helped Archaeopteryx to fly.'
Both PhysOrg and Live Science insisted on calling these birds 'winged dinosaurs,' even though it would require believing that 'that completely modern bird feathers evolved as early as 150 million years ago' as if out of nowhere. Carey believes the feathers 'would have been advantageous during this early evolutionary stage of dinosaur flight,' even though he admitted in the video clip that the 'origin of birds and flight is something scientists have been debating for centuries.' He admits being fascinated by Archaeopteryx as a child, learning to view the fossil as a 'missing link' or 'transitional form' between dinosaurs and birds, but now his own research on the feathers shows them being identical to those on modern flying birds.
Like bacteria in milk or bird droppings on the windshield, these otherwise fascinating scientific stories about birds are defiled by evolution-ese. Look at this sentence from the PhysOrg article on Archaeopteryx: 'The team also learned from its examination that Archaeopteryx’s feather structure is identical to that of living birds, a discovery that shows modern wing feathers had evolved as early as 150 million years ago in the Jurassic period.' Does everyone see how crazy that sentence is? It makes absolutely no sense unless one is drunk on Dar-wine. They are asking us rational, reasonable, common-sense members of the public to believe that modern feathers popped into existence 150 million years ago, and either were not used for flying (incredible that evolution would produce a complex flight feather for running along the ground) or were used for flying (incredible, considering all the hardware and software required to go along with flight), and didn’t evolve ever since in terms of basic structural plan.
Do you realize how complex feathers are, with precisely-interlocking barbs, barbules and hooks, providing lightweight yet strong surfaces for flight? Feathers are completely different from reptile scales. We must stop letting the evolutionists spew forth their opinions as scientific facts and use some basic logic. Carey and his Dar-wino friends did not watch feathers evolve 150 million years ago. They found a perfectly modern flight feather in German limestone. That is the science; the rest are bald assertions of Darwinism (B.A.D.). Common sense requires filtering scientific evidence from corrupt interpretations drawn out of (or in spite of) the evidence. Now, watch that video of the goshawk speeding through the trees again and enjoy it free of polluting notions.
Don't try this one either.
This just-so story is so lame, it should be a huge embarrassment to the Darwin Party. These guys don’t understand evolutionary theory at all. You can’t draw analogies between chick development to adult bird in a year, and say a similar transition occurs in evolutionary time over millions of years. Chick development is encoded in DNA and in numerous epigenetic regulatory codes, and is observable in the present. Are they believers in some mystical meta-Gaia belief, that the history of the life on Earth develops from embryo to adult? This hypothesis is a cross between Lamarckism and recapitulation theory, both of which have been tossed into the dustbin of history. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
You sure like calling creationist all sorts of names. And yet evolutionists have been shown to be dishonest on many occasions.
I have this book and I was going to mail it to you, but you can read it online here. http://www.halos.com/ Maybe YOU can refute his claims and have it peer reviewed. You can also see how the establishment treats those who go against the status quo. So much for your accusations of "hiding the key of knowledge".
I don't know if this is true or not:http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ai...cientists.html
Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled 'The Biologist,' that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G: (Caylor) and 'J' (the scientist). We joint the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.
G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"
J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"
J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.
but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. Jas 3:8 (NIV)
May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer. Ps 19:14 (NIV)