Dinosaur with feathers and scales?

[aspen]

randor do you have the same requirement for doctors as you do scientists?

 

[RANDOR]

Sorry....i knew I should of mentioned...scientists pertaining to our Lord.........my bad. Ya know....evolution and all that stuff

 

[River Jordan]

I don't know... did all the dinosaurs that supposedly had "feathers" have wings and fly? In that case they were of the bird kind.

I imagine most of them flew about as well as ostriches.

Well you seem to be suggesting that since "nothing excludes them" they are therefore of the bird kind. That's a silly conclusion. Nothing excludes me from being a shoe salesman, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I am one, does it?

I agree. This whole "bird kind" thing is rather silly.

No I don't. Why do you ask?

So if ostriches have feathers but can't fly, and you have zero evidence that they ever could fly, what puts them into the "bird kind"?

The one's that could fly were birds. The others weren't. So again, what's your point?

See above. Ostriches, emus, penguins, and other members of the "bird kind" have feathers and can't fly, and you have zero evidence that they ever could fly. So exactly how is it they are in the "bird kind" and all the dinosaurs that also had feathers and couldn't fly aren't?

 

[aspen]

but, modern medicine is rooted in science which is founded on evolution...i guess it is just easier to ignore with medicine
it is funny to watch uppsula demand evidence and sources when eveything she says is based on her uneducated opinion...lol

it is nice to know that we can rely on DNA to determine what animal belongs to what species rather than deciding what animal flies or guessing about whether they ever flew......as if that has anything to do with classification......i guess bats and flying fish are now considered birds. what about octapus? They have beaks.......

Up, you're are actually making me look like a scientist..haha.

 

[Wormwood]

aspen,

Lets qualify our terms here. Darwinian evolution is not the foundation of modern medicine. All creationists believe in adaptation and variation within kinds based on the limits prescribed in the genetic code. There is no scientific observation of a species receiving additional information in their DNA that permitted new abilities by way of natural selection or mutation. Modern medicine is not based on this theory of mutating DNA which leads to greater complexity or a complete transformation of a species. You are misrepresenting your case.

 

[River Jordan]

but, modern medicine is rooted in science which is founded on evolution...i guess it is just easier to ignore with medicine
it is funny to watch uppsula demand evidence and sources when eveything she says is based on her uneducated opinion...lol

That's the intellectual luxury of creationism. You don't actually have to do anything of your own or back up your own arguments...they're just religious beliefs after all. You can just sit in your chair, throw rocks at the scientists who actually do the work, and declare yourself superior.

Darwinian evolution is not the foundation of modern medicine. All creationists believe in adaptation and variation within kinds based on the limits prescribed in the genetic code.

And this is where it just gets ridiculous.

1) "Adaptation and variation" is evolution. Just because you call it something else (because you don't like using the word) it's still the same thing.

2) There is no such thing as "kinds". If you disagree, then please provide a useful definition of the word.

3) Here's another question I rarely get creationists to answer: What "limits in the genetic code" are you talking about?

There is no scientific observation of a species receiving additional information in their DNA that permitted new abilities by way of natural selection or mutation.

Didn't you and I go over this before? I predicted that you wouldn't be able to clear the very first hurdle of saying exactly what you think "information in their DNA" is, and how it can be measured, and I was right. But here you are making the exact same argument!!

Did you recently figure out how to clear that hurdle, or did you just forget our earlier exchange?

Modern medicine is not based on this theory of mutating DNA which leads to greater complexity or a complete transformation of a species. You are misrepresenting your case.

Why do we need new influenza vaccines every year? Why are so many resources being poured into developing new antibiotics?

 

[Wormwood]

Have you ever heard of the Human Genome Project? The "limits" in the genetic code are based on the DNA information which directs the cells in "building" a human being.

This ultimate product of the HGP has given the world a resource of detailed information about the structure, organization and function of the complete set of human genes. This information can be thought of as the basic set of inheritable "instructions" for the development and function of a human being. (www.genome.gov)

What creationists have argued is that many of the supposed "evolutions" noted by people such as yourself in bacteria and so forth are the result of changes to the organism based on information that is already present in the DNA code. These changes are not the result of added "instructions" via mutation to make the organism different or better.

The reasons viruses and bacteria become resistant to antibiotics and medicines is the result of natural selection, not evolving bacteria. Antibiotics are used to kill bacteria and slow their replication. If you have 100 bacteria and 15 of them have an already present resistance to a chemical compound that would slow their reproduction, then the resistant bacteria will be the ones reproducing more while the others do not. Over time, resistant bacteria are the ones that become more abundant and, thus, harder to treat. Medicines must continually be developed to keep up with the natural selection that occurs as a result of our medicines not bacteria evolving into "smarter" bugs. This is no different than any form of natural selection. Weaker animals are killed and the genetics of the stronger ones are passed on which makes the entire species stronger. This only qualifies a species and does not mutate it from one form to another. According to your logic, if there are 10 ants in my house and I smash all the red ones with a hammer, then the black ones have effectively "evolved" into a more dominant and smarter species in my home.

Antibiotic use promotes development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Every time a person takes antibiotics, sensitive bacteria are killed, but resistant germs may be left to grow and multiply. Repeated and improper uses of antibiotics are primary causes of the increase in drug-resistant bacteria. cdc.gov

The word "evolution" here is entirely misleading. So, bacteria becoming more resistant to antibiotics is very different from a cow spending a lot of time in the water and, by the unobserved guesswork of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, happens to give birth to a cow-whale with a blow hole on its head so it can be more at ease in the water than its mother.

 

[River Jordan]

Have you ever heard of the Human Genome Project? The "limits" in the genetic code are based on the DNA information which directs the cells in "building" a human being.

What "limits" are you talking about, and how are they relevant to evolution?

What creationists have argued is that many of the supposed "evolutions" noted by people such as yourself in bacteria and so forth are the result of changes to the organism based on information that is already present in the DNA code. These changes are not the result of added "instructions" via mutation to make the organism different or better.

You still haven't cleared that first hurdle. What do you mean by "genetic information" and how should we measure it? Let's start with a basic example that's conducted in universities all across the world.

We have a single, individual E. coli bacteria. From that individual, we culture a population (it's called a single-clone population). We then take that population and culture it in a dish that is half neutral substrate, and half substrate with an antibiotic infused in it. For the first few generations no bacteria grow on the half that has the antibiotic. But after a few generations we start to see bacteria growing on that half. So we take samples from the population that's living on the antibiotic and look at their genome. We then compare their genome to the one we started the experiment with and we notice that they are different.

How do we tell which genome has "more genetic information"?

The reasons viruses and bacteria become resistant to antibiotics and medicines is the result of natural selection, not evolving bacteria.

Honestly? See, this is why no scientist takes creationists seriously. "They're changing due to natural selection, but not evolving"? Come on now...are you so averse to conceding even the most fundamental facts to evolution that you'll say stuff like that?

Antibiotics are used to kill bacteria and slow their replication. If you have 100 bacteria and 15 of them have an already present resistance to a chemical compound that would slow their reproduction, then the resistant bacteria will be the ones reproducing more while the others do not. Over time, resistant bacteria are the ones that become more abundant and, thus, harder to treat.

See above. We can directly control the circumstances and watch evolution produce traits that weren't there before.

Medicines must continually be developed to keep up with the natural selection that occurs as a result of our medicines. This is no different than any form of natural selection. Weaker animals are killed and the genetics of the stronger ones are passed on which makes the entire species stronger. This only enhances a species and does not mutate it from one form to another.

So where did these genetic sequences come from in the first place? A lot of our antibiotics and drugs didn't exist 100 years ago, so there was no need for the pathogens to have resistance to them. Surely you don't believe God deliberately put them there? But what else is there if you so strongly believe they can't get there naturally?

So, bacteria becoming more resistant to antibiotics is very different from a cow spending a lot of time in the water and, by the unobserved guesswork of punctuated equilibrium, happens to give birth to a cow-whale with a blow hole on its head so it can be more at ease in the water than its mother.

Yeah....um. Has it ever occurred to you that that problem here isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it?

 

[Wormwood]

River, dear girl, my point is quite simple. Creationists differentiate between what you are describing with bacteria and Darwinian evolution. What is happening in your petri dish in your biology class is not the same thing as a cow turning into a whale (as much as your profs would proclaim it along with the fairy dust of a few million years). There is entirely different information at work here with two entirely different organisms. What is strikingly evident, for animals such as the blue whale, is that you cannot have a slowly changing petri dish type change from a land mammal to a sea-dwelling whale. Their ability to close off airways for swimming and eating, constrict vessels to deal with water pressures over their massive bodies that can have a wide range of water pressures from one end to the other while maintaining temperature and blood flow as they dive downward or go upward are just a few concepts that cannot slowly be incorporated. You either have them or you die. You cannot slowly gain them to form a whale. There are hundreds of such examples. Your refusal to accept creationists terminology sounds like an issue on your end, not mine. The reason you cannot have a conversation with such people is because you purposefully sabotage it through unnecessary word games. You know what is meant, but you continue to point to tired quotes and claims by evolutionists that ignore the real issues.

Once again, your issue is that you continually label those who disagree with you as anti-science or having a problem with science and those whom you admire and taught you as scientific. How fortunate. However, your labels do nothing to convince anyone that the killing of non-resistant bacteria so the more resistant ones can flourish is the same as a cow turning into a whale. I think God created every organism with the ability to adapt and survive...including humans. Maybe God did make bacteria resistant as a result of His curse and his desire to limit human life? We will both have the opportunity to ask him some day soon.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

but, modern medicine is rooted in science which is founded on evolution...i guess it is just easier to ignore with medicine
it is funny to watch uppsula demand evidence and sources when eveything she says is based on her uneducated opinion...lol

it is nice to know that we can rely on DNA to determine what animal belongs to what species rather than deciding what animal flies or guessing about whether they ever flew......as if that has anything to do with classification......i guess bats and flying fish are now considered birds. what about octapus? They have beaks.......

Up, you're are actually making me look like a scientist..haha.

Science is "founded on evolution"? How interesting to know that no scientists existed before the 19th century. Or maybe you insinuate your false belief system throughout human history? That statement was so blockish it's hard to know how to intelligently respond to it.

 

[River Jordan]

Wormwood,

This is what I find so enthralling about these discussions. You made some fairly specific claims (e.g., there are "genetic limits", evolution can't "add new genetic information", antibiotic resistance never evolves but was always present), yet all it takes to flummox you on every one of them is to ask one obvious follow-up question for each.

What "genetic limits"? Er....um....

What do you mean by "genetic information"? Er....um....

What about experiments that demonstrate the evolution of new traits? Er....um.....

All that makes it obvious that you don't fully understand the very arguments you're making, and are likely just parroting arguments you've heard and/or read from creationist sources. They sound good to you, so you post them here. But as soon as you're asked a follow-up....oops!

But the truly fascinating part is that no matter how many times this process is repeated, you'll just keep parroting the same fundamentally flawed arguments. You don't know what "genetic information" is or even how to measure it, but that won't stop you from telling everyone that evolution can't produce it! You don't know what "genetic limits" are, but that won't stop you from telling everyone that they're a barrier to evolution!

This is a mindset that I absolutely cannot relate to at all. As Christians, we are to be truthful in everything. So how someone like you can go around parroting arguments that you really don't even understand or know if they are at all accurate, is beyond me. Is your sense of loyalty and tribalism so deep that your thinking process is something like, "These creationists are Christians, so I can trust everything they say, especially if their arguments are against evolution"?

Have you ever thought about taking some time and doing a little fact checking into these creationist arguments? Doesn't the fact that it only takes one question to expose their holes strike you as even a little bit troubling? Or is your mindset more like "I don't care if these arguments are accurate...as long as they support scripture I'll keep using them"?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I imagine most of them flew about as well as ostriches.

Great, then if your imaginary scenario is correct then according to God's classification system dinosaurs are NOT of the bird kind. And again you fail to present the point of this thread.

I agree. This whole "bird kind" thing is rather silly.

Well what you should be agreeing to is the absurdity of your own argument, rather than trying to be evasive. That would be the honest thing to do. But you obviously opted to try to joke it all away... as usual. But if that is what you want to do, then OK, tell me why you think the "bird kind thing" is silly. We can play that game if you want.

So if ostriches have feathers but can't fly, and you have zero evidence that they ever could fly, what puts them into the "bird kind"?

I didn't say they were of the "bird kind", did I?

Again, you need to re-think your arguments.

See above. Ostriches, emus, penguins, and other members of the "bird kind" have feathers and can't fly, and you have zero evidence that they ever could fly. So exactly how is it they are in the "bird kind" and all the dinosaurs that also had feathers and couldn't fly aren't?

I have seen above, but I don't think you have. You are either assuming or asserting that that ostriches, emus, penguins, are of the "bird kind". That puts you in the same category as Tex (see above). I never claimed that ANY creature living today that cannot fly is of the bird kind. (see above!!).

but, modern medicine is rooted in science which is founded on evolution...i guess it is just easier to ignore with medicine
it is funny to watch uppsula demand evidence and sources when eveything she says is based on her uneducated opinion...lol

it is nice to know that we can rely on DNA to determine what animal belongs to what species rather than deciding what animal flies or guessing about whether they ever flew......as if that has anything to do with classification......i guess bats and flying fish are now considered birds. what about octapus? They have beaks.......

Up, you're are actually making me look like a scientist..haha.

I'm not making you look like a scientist, I'm making you look like a fool with pie on your face. I have already pointed out that the Bible has a different classification system than the one we use today, obviously because the account given in the Bible was not provided for the purpose of teaching us about genetics. And if your point is that the Bible teaches us that animals with "beaks" such as octapusses and platypusses and all the other "pusses" in the world are birds, the why don't you point out the verses in question?

 

[River Jordan]

Uppsala,

Either you have your own, very unique brand of Christian creationism that bears very little resemblance to most other types, or you're once again playing your little game where whenever I argue against a mainstream creationist position, you're like "What? Who said I believe that?"

We can figure this out fairly easily: Are extant flightless birds (e.g., ostriches, emus, penguins, kiwis, etc.) in the "bird kind"? If so, based on what characteristics? If not, what "kind" are they?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

That's the intellectual luxury of creationism. You don't actually have to do anything of your own or back up your own arguments...they're just religious beliefs after all. You can just sit in your chair, throw rocks at the scientists who actually do the work, and declare yourself superior.

No, the only "intellectual luxuries" displayed here are the ones that you advocate. If you disagree then don't be intellecually lazy and just make assertions. To me it seems you are just shrugging off ALL religious beliefs as invalid, (which is a bit strange for someone who claims to be a Christian), but without presenting the slightest evidence that anything the scientific community posits about things that are not observed or tested somehow trump all religious beliefs. And your beliefs about evolution are just as "religious" as mine are. If you disagree then why don't you prove your point?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

No, the only "intellectual luxuries" displayed here are the ones that you advocate. If you disagree then don't be intellecually lazy and just make assertions. To me it seems you are just shrugging off ALL religious beliefs as invalid, (which is a bit strange for someone who claims to be a Christian), but without presenting the slightest evidence that anything the scientific community posits about things that are not observed or tested somehow trump all religious beliefs. And your beliefs about evolution are just as "religious" as mine are. If you disagree then why don't you prove your point?

It's the materialists who claim that faith and science are in conflict. I too find it strange to hear this doctrine of demons being espoused by those claiming to be Christian.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Uppsala,

Either you have your own, very unique brand of Christian creationism that bears very little resemblance to most other types, or you're once again playing your little game where whenever I argue against a mainstream creationist position, you're like "What? Who said I believe that?"

We can figure this out fairly easily: Are extant flightless birds (e.g., ostriches, emus, penguins, kiwis, etc.) in the "bird kind"? If so, based on what characteristics? If not, what "kind" are they?

Rather than trying to dodge the issues here by trying to start up a discussion about what "brand" of creationism I represent, why don't you answer the questions posed? And if I ask anyone whether or not I actually said something, it is because I don't want to be missrepresented. Do YOU want to be missrepressented? Yeah... I didn't think so!

And your question, as usual, is totally irrelevant! See above.

It's the materialists who claim that faith and science are in conflict. I too find it strange to hear this doctrine of demons being espoused by those claiming to be Christian.

Exactly. If challenged to defend their "beliefs" in Christ they have no problem quoting scripture. But if anyone else defends their views and uses the Bible to do so.. they are somehow automatically "fundamentalists"! The hypocrisy is astounding...

 

[River Jordan]

No, the only "intellectual luxuries" displayed here are the ones that you advocate.

Like what? Be specific.

If you disagree then don't be intellecually lazy and just make assertions. To me it seems you are just shrugging off ALL religious beliefs as invalid, (which is a bit strange for someone who claims to be a Christian)

?????????????? Sorry bud, but you've completely gone off the rails with this one.

but without presenting the slightest evidence that anything the scientific community posits about things that are not observed or tested somehow trump all religious beliefs. And your beliefs about evolution are just as "religious" as mine are. If you disagree then why don't you prove your point?

????????????? You're not making any sense at all. The point of this thread is extremely simple.

We have fossil dinosaur specimens that show the presence of feathers. The more we look, the more dino's with feathers we find, including this latest one that had both feathers and scales. Given creationism's claims about "kinds", these specimens lead to some obvious questions, which you tried to answer.

When I asked what would exclude this new specimen from the "bird kind", you answered, "Nothing" and stated that "The "bird kind" had wings and could fly".

That led to an obvious question about whether extant flightless birds like emus, ostriches, and penguins were in the "bird kind". You answered, "It depends" on whether they could fly at the time of creation. When I asked if you had any evidence that they could fly at the time of creation, you answered "No I don't". And then you got irritated when I assumed that you believed extant flightless birds were in the "bird kind".

Thus we find ourselves at the current point. All I'm asking you to do is clarify your position. Do you believe extant flightless birds (e.g., ostriches, emus, penguins, kiwis, etc.) are in the "bird kind"? If so, based on what characteristics? If not, what "kind" are they?

It's the materialists who claim that faith and science are in conflict.

Only by re-defining "science" to be "only that which doesn't conflict with our faith".

I too find it strange to hear this doctrine of demons being espoused by those claiming to be Christian.

You mean the "doctrine of demons" that Pope John Paul II said was "more than just a hypothesis" and was supported by a "convergence in results" that was "neither planned nor sought"? The subject about which he said...

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points."

 

[Wormwood]

River,

The reason I do not respond to these ridiculous questions is because you know better. You are trying to shine all your class textbooks to give the appearance that you are the only one with real knowledge on the subject and everyone else is just parroting information they know nothing about. Sounds to me like you are parroting your professors and drawing the conclusions they have told you to draw. That's fine, we all get our information from somewhere. Lets just not pretend all of your information is self-derived while everyone else's is pawned off of someone else.

Genetic information is the information in the DNA that maps out the development of the organism. The reason there was a "Human Genome Project" is because "humans" have genetic information specific to them as a species. Its why we don't have babies with gills or wings....ever. No such information is in our human DNA. Are you denying there is information specific to species that allows for genomes to be mapped according to that species? Or is DNA, in your mind, like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates...you never know what you are gonna get? Maybe I assume too much in my conversations with you.

What about the necessity to have an entire list of traits for a mammal to exist in the water that prohibit gradual, petri dish growth you keep alluding to? Er...um....
What about the fact that antibiotic changes are the result of resistances that already exist in a population of bacteria that you tried to pawn off as proof of Darwinian evolution? Er...um...
What about your hermeneutical method that has been shown to be based purely on your projections on the Bible rather than the authors intent? Er...um...

 

[River Jordan]

The reason I do not respond to these ridiculous questions is because you know better.

I'm sorry to say this, but I don't believe you. From where I sit, it looks very much like the reason you refuse to answer such simple questions is because you don't know the answers. It also could be because you know what will likely happen if you answer with any specificity. For example, with the question of "what is genetic information, and how are you measuring it", it's either that you truly have no idea how to answer, or you know that as soon as you give a useful answer (like say, "the number of nucleotide bases") I'll come right back with multiple examples where evolution results in an increased number of nucleotide bases, thereby falsifying one of your favorite creationist arguments.

It could be that what you said above is what you are telling yourself, but I'm just letting you know that I don't buy it. Not for one second.

You are trying to shine all your class textbooks to give the appearance that you are the only one with real knowledge on the subject and everyone else is just parroting information they know nothing about. Sounds to me like you are parroting your professors and drawing the conclusions they have told you to draw. That's fine, we all get our information from somewhere. Lets just not pretend all of your information is self-derived while everyone else's is pawned off of someone else.

Again you're doing the same thing Uppsala did earlier. You're assuming that my education was nothing more than me sitting in a classroom like a robot and being programmed by my professors....that I uncritically accepted everything they told me and never once saw or studied anything myself.

If that's the sort of thing you have to tell yourself in order to get out of engaging in an actual discussion with me, that should set off some alarm bells in your head.

Let me ask you a question (and see if you actually answer it): How did you come by this "evolution can't produce new genetic information" argument? Did you spend a lot of time reading through evolutionary biology and genetics journals, taking courses, and speaking to scientists until you finally realized "Hey! There are no examples of evolution producing new genetic information!"? If not, exactly how did you get to the point where you started making this argument?

Genetic information is the information in the DNA that maps out the development of the organism. The reason there was a "Human Genome Project" is because "humans" have genetic information specific to them as a species. Its why we don't have babies with gills or wings....ever. No such information is in our human DNA. Are you denying there is information specific to species that allows for genomes to be mapped according to that species? Or is DNA, in your mind, like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates...you never know what you are gonna get? Maybe I assume too much in my conversations with you.

Sorry, but that's not at all any sort of definition of "genetic information" nor did you give any means to measure it. It's very simple. Go back to the example I gave you (the E. coli single-clone experiment). We have two different genomes, one from the original parent of the original population, and one from the population that grew on the antibiotic medium. How do you propose we tell which genome has more "genetic information"?

What about the necessity to have an entire list of traits for a mammal to exist in the water that prohibit gradual, petri dish growth you keep alluding to? Er...um....

Sorry, but that doesn't even make sense.

What about the fact that antibiotic changes are the result of resistances that already exist in a population of bacteria that you tried to pawn off as proof of Darwinian evolution? Er...um...

Apparently you're not paying attention to what I've posted. Go back to my post #28 and read over the E. coli single-clone experiment again (or for the first time). The point is, we have ways of demonstrating for a fact that the resistant trait was not present originally.

What about your hermeneutical method that has been shown to be based purely on your projections on the Bible rather than the authors intent? Er...um...

LOL! Nice try. I'm sure that's your opinion.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

You mean the "doctrine of demons" that Pope John Paul II said was "more than just a hypothesis" and was supported by a "convergence in results" that was "neither planned nor sought"? The subject about which he said...

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points."

You should read up more on what the Catholic Church actually teaches. It neither endorses nor excludes evolution as a possibility, but affirms as a literal event the story of Adam and Eve and the fall of man. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution This should prove more fruitful than quoting a pope out of context.

Oh, and the "doctrine of demons" I was referring to is that faith and science are irreconcilable enemies. I'm sure an intelligent and rational person would have gleaned that clear meaning from my post. I'm sorry you couldn't.