Moderator: Community Team
Viceroy63 wrote:I post this because it is one of evolutionist's strongest point that the birds of today evolved from Dinosaur's. Museums everywhere depict this as truth and fact. Yet in the article is stated that Birds basically existed before the first dinosaur with feathers and that the feathers were only scales that appear in the fossilized rocks as feathers when in fact they are not upon closer inspection.
Masses of unsuspecting intelligent people all over the world are duped into believing that Evolution is real when it is really a theory, a possible explanation that just does not hold any water.
The Bible states that Birds did not come from Land but from the waters instead (Genesis 1:20).
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Viceroy63 wrote:You are right about the article not making any argument against the theory of evolution but what does that say about all that supposedly evidence that presents evolution as a true fact. Children in schools open up their text books and learn that this is how the birds came to be and then they see a picture of an ape evolving into a man and are taught that this is how man came to be when none of that is true. It's a theory but they are not taught it as theory. "Evidence" is presented and young minds accept it.
I'm just saying, where is all the fossil evidence at? There is more evidence in the Bible version of creation then in the theory of evolution. If something is not true, why teach it? If you present something as true when it is not then it's a lie. Plain and simple. This article is really explaining that what we have been taught and are still being taught about the birds being living dinosaurs is a lie and that's all. So basically tax dollars go to teaching children, lie's.
Viceroy63 wrote:You are right about the article not making any argument against the theory of evolution but what does that say about all that supposedly evidence that presents evolution as a true fact. Children in schools open up their text books and learn that this is how the birds came to be and then they see a picture of an ape evolving into a man and are taught that this is how man came to be when none of that is true. It's a theory but they are not taught it as theory. "Evidence" is presented and young minds accept it.
I'm just saying, where is all the fossil evidence at? There is more evidence in the Bible version of creation then in the theory of evolution. If something is not true, why teach it? If you present something as true when it is not then it's a lie. Plain and simple. This article is really explaining that what we have been taught and are still being taught about the birds being living dinosaurs is a lie and that's all. So basically tax dollars go to teaching children, lie's.
A lie-to-children, sometimes referred to as a Wittgenstein's ladder, is an expression that describes the simplification of technical or difficult-to-understand material for consumption by children. The word "children" should not be taken literally, but as encompassing anyone in the process of learning about a given topic, regardless of age. It is itself a simplification of certain concepts in the philosophy of science.
Because life and its aspects can be extremely difficult to understand without experience, to present a full level of complexity to a student or child all at once can be overwhelming. Hence elementary explanations tend to be simple, concise, or simply "wrong" ā but in a way that attempts to make the lesson more understandable. Sometimes the lesson can be qualified, for example by claiming "this isn't technically true, but it's easier to understand". In retrospect the first explanation may be easy to understand for its inaccuracies, but it will be replaced with a more sophisticated explanation which is closer to "the truth". This "tender introduction" concept is an important aspect of education.
Such statements are not usually intended as deceptions, and may, in fact, be true to a first approximation or within certain contexts. For example Newtonian mechanics, by modern standards, is factually incorrect, as it fails to take into account relativity or quantum mechanics, but it is still a valuable and valid approximation to those theories in many situations.
Viceroy63 wrote:You are right about the article not making any argument against the theory of evolution but what does that say about all that supposedly evidence that presents evolution as a true fact. Children in schools open up their text books and learn that this is how the birds came to be and then they see a picture of an ape evolving into a man and are taught that this is how man came to be when none of that is true. It's a theory but they are not taught it as theory. "Evidence" is presented and young minds accept it.
I'm just saying, where is all the fossil evidence at? There is more evidence in the Bible version of creation then in the theory of evolution. If something is not true, why teach it? If you present something as true when it is not then it's a lie. Plain and simple. This article is really explaining that what we have been taught and are still being taught about the birds being living dinosaurs is a lie and that's all. So basically tax dollars go to teaching children, lie's.
crispybits wrote:I know I said I wouldnt feed the troll, but...A lie-to-children, sometimes referred to as a Wittgenstein's ladder, is an expression that describes the simplification of technical or difficult-to-understand material for consumption by children. The word "children" should not be taken literally, but as encompassing anyone in the process of learning about a given topic, regardless of age. It is itself a simplification of certain concepts in the philosophy of science.
Because life and its aspects can be extremely difficult to understand without experience, to present a full level of complexity to a student or child all at once can be overwhelming. Hence elementary explanations tend to be simple, concise, or simply "wrong" ā but in a way that attempts to make the lesson more understandable. Sometimes the lesson can be qualified, for example by claiming "this isn't technically true, but it's easier to understand". In retrospect the first explanation may be easy to understand for its inaccuracies, but it will be replaced with a more sophisticated explanation which is closer to "the truth". This "tender introduction" concept is an important aspect of education.
Such statements are not usually intended as deceptions, and may, in fact, be true to a first approximation or within certain contexts. For example Newtonian mechanics, by modern standards, is factually incorrect, as it fails to take into account relativity or quantum mechanics, but it is still a valuable and valid approximation to those theories in many situations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children
Viceroy63 wrote:You are right about the article not making any argument against the theory of evolution but what does that say about all that supposedly evidence that presents evolution as a true fact.
Viceroy63 wrote:You are right about the article not making any argument against the theory of evolution but what does that say about all that supposedly evidence that presents evolution as a true fact. Children in schools open up their text books and learn that this is how the birds came to be and then they see a picture of an ape evolving into a man and are taught that this is how man came to be when none of that is true. It's a theory but they are not taught it as theory. "Evidence" is presented and young minds accept it.
I'm just saying, where is all the fossil evidence at? There is more evidence in the Bible version of creation then in the theory of evolution. If something is not true, why teach it? If you present something as true when it is not then it's a lie. Plain and simple. This article is really explaining that what we have been taught and are still being taught about the birds being living dinosaurs is a lie and that's all. So basically tax dollars go to teaching children, lie's.
Viceroy63 wrote:Feathered fossil proves that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs
By Steve Connor , Science Editor
The Independent News Paper
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 13382.html)
A foot-long lizard that glided through the trees of prehistory 220 million years ago has overturned an established theory of how birds evolved from feathered dinosaurs.
The lizard, which lived 75 million years before the first known bird, may have sported a set of feathers yet was not a dinosaur, a study published today has found.
Finding feathers on a lizard which belongs to the ancestral stock of dinosaurs suggests that these most bird-like of biological structures are far more ancient that anyone has until now realized.
The scientists who made the discovery, reported in the journal of Science,"I believe the existence of a 220 million-year-old fossil with feathers, blows a hole in the idea that birds are "living dinosaurs".
The research has focused on the fossils of Longisquama insignis, an archosaur - the group that gave rise to the dinosaurs, crocodiles and birds - that lived in the forests of what is now central Asia by probably jumping from tree to tree.
"These are some amazing fossils, and at the very least they prove that feathers did not evolve from dinosaurs," said John Ruben, professor of zoology at Oregon State University in Corvallis and a member of the research team. "The supposed link between dinosaurs and birds is pretty entrenched in palaeontology, but it's not as solid as the public has been led to believe."
Soviet scientists originally found the fossils in Kyrgyzstan in 1969 but they laid in a museum drawer in Moscow for many years after an initial examination concluded that two parallel rows of appendages on the back of the animal were scales, not feathers.
However, closer scrutiny of the "scales" by a team of Russian and American scientists found that they have several key features in common with feathers. The scientists found that the appendages had a long, thin tube or shaft running down their centre, with projections or "pinnae" extending from the sides of the base, just like modern feathers, but quite unlike reptilian scales.
Another feature is that Longisquama appears to have a feather growing in the same manner as modern feathers, where the pinnae unfurl inside a tube called a feather sheath.
The scientists believe that they have identified an unfurled pinna inside a sheath where the outer wall has flaked away. Larry Martin, another member of the team at the University of Kansas, said this was the factor that clinched it for him. "I'd been holding back until that point, thinking that these were unusual and feather-like scales, but scales none the less. The results were startling," he said.
Feathers are so distinctive that it is unlikely they they had evolved more than once, Professor Ruben said. "A point that too many people always ignored, however, is that the most bird-like of the dinosaurs, such as Bambiraptor and Velociraptor, lived 70 million years after the earliest bird, Archaeopteryx," he said.
"So according to these findings, you have birds flying before the "evolution" of the first bird-like dinosaurs. We now question very strongly whether there were any feathered dinosaurs at all ... they were probably like flightless birds."
Source:
The Independent News Paper
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 13382.html)
I post this because it is one of evolutionist's strongest point that the birds of today evolved from Dinosaur's. Museums everywhere depict this as truth and fact. Yet in the article is stated that Birds basically existed before the first dinosaur with feathers and that the feathers were only scales that appear in the fossilized rocks as feathers when in fact they are not upon closer inspection.
Masses of unsuspecting intelligent people all over the world are duped into believing that Evolution is real when it is really a theory, a possible explanation that just does not hold any water.
The Bible states that Birds did not come from Land but from the waters instead (Genesis 1:20).
I post this because it is one of evolutionist's strongest point that the birds of today evolved from Dinosaur's. Museums everywhere depict this as truth and fact. Yet in the article is stated that Birds basically existed before the first dinosaur with feathers and that the feathers were only scales that appear in the fossilized rocks as feathers when in fact they are not upon closer inspection.
DoomYoshi wrote: The canonization of the Bible had one reason and one reason only: to declare the Catholic Church as the only church. So, if you accept the Old Testament with the New, if you accept the books in the order often presented, you are affirming that the Catholic Church is the only church. However, the reformists ignored this inconvenient piece of history and started worshipping the Bible instead of God. Now, Christianity has deviated so far, that Joel Olsteen is the most recognizable religious face in America (he, of course, became famous by promising people riches if they donated to his church).
DoomYoshi wrote:I post this because it is one of evolutionist's strongest point that the birds of today evolved from Dinosaur's. Museums everywhere depict this as truth and fact. Yet in the article is stated that Birds basically existed before the first dinosaur with feathers and that the feathers were only scales that appear in the fossilized rocks as feathers when in fact they are not upon closer inspection.
Actually, this is one of the most controversial opinions in evolutionary biology. It is not scientists who support this opinion, but rather the popular press. It is true that skeletal remains make birds look similar to dinosaurs. However, there is one major fact that has prevented this view from being scientifically verifiable. Namely, in birds the digits are numbered 2,3,4 (compared to a human with digits 1-5). The corresponding dinosaur digits are 1,2,3. This difference has been considered unsurmountable. Of course, modern molecular approaches are starting to prove that we have the bird numbering scheme wrong. Once that is proven, it will be a strong point for evolutionary biology, but not until then.
Viceroy63 wrote:I'm just saying, where is all the fossil evidence at?
Viceroy63 wrote:There is more evidence in the Bible version of creation then in the theory of evolution.
Viceroy63 wrote:If something is not true, why teach it? If you present something as true when it is not then it's a lie. Plain and simple. This article is really explaining that what we have been taught and are still being taught about the birds being living dinosaurs is a lie and that's all. So basically tax dollars go to teaching children, lie's.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Viceroy63 wrote:No Evolution at Present.
The lack of a case for evolution is most clearly recognized by the fact that no one has ever seen it happen.
"Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer." 1
"Horizontal variations" (e.g., the different varieties of dogs) are not real evolution, of course, nor are "mutations," which are always either neutral or harmful, as far as all known mutations are concerned. A process which has never been observed to occur, in all human history, should not be called scientific.
No New Species.
Charles Darwin is popularly supposed to have solved the problem of "the origin of species," in his famous 1859 book of that title. However, as the eminent Harvard biologist, Ernst Mayr, one of the nation's top evolutionists, has observed:
"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his On the Origin of Species."2
Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study.
"No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it. . . ." 3
No Known Mechanism of Evolution.
It is also a very curious fact that no one understands how evolution works. Evolutionists commonly protest that they know evolution is true, but they can't seem to determine its mechanism.
"Evolution is . . . troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery--speciation itself." 4
One would think that in the 125 years following Darwin, with thousands of trained biologists studying the problem and using millions of dollars worth of complex lab equipment, they would have worked it out by now, but the mechanism which originates new species is still "the central mystery."
No Evidence That Evolution Is Possible.
The basic reason why there is no scientific evidence of evolution in either the present or the past is that the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts the very premise of evolution. The evolutionist assumes that the whole universe has evolved upward from a single primeval particle to human beings, but the second law (one of the best-proved laws of science) says that the whole universe is running down into complete disorder.
"How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question. . . ." 12
Evolutionists commonly attempt to sidestep this question by asserting that the second law applies only to isolated systems. But this is wrong!
". . . the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not." 13
"Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems." 14
Entropy can be forced to decrease in an open system, if enough organizing energy and information is applied to it from outside the system. This externally introduced complexity would have to be adequate to overcome the normal internal increase in entropy when raw energy is added from outside. However, no such external source of organized and energized information is available to the supposed evolutionary process. Raw solar energy is not organized information!
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users