A Theory Of Lds Evolution (Add Yours Here)

[Rob Osborn]

It is called evidence. Ancient bird/dinosaur fossils

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ancient+bird/dinosaur+fossils&client=firefox-a&hs=Pq&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=rcs&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=eub5UsAJyoyoAfeKgegP&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=568

Evidence of what? That there were birds at the same time as dinosaurs? Thats what I believe anyways.

[thesometimesaint]

Evidence of what? That there were birds at the same time as dinosaurs? Thats what I believe anyways.

Those are the bones of dinosaurs that look like birds. Not just fanciful paintings.

 

It shows that early birds are related to dinosaurs.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28985201/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/nine-links-transition-dinosaurs-birds/#.UvpTELT1uI8

[Rob Osborn]

Those are the bones of dinosaurs that look like birds. Not just fanciful paintings.

 

It shows that early birds are related to dinosaurs.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28985201/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/nine-links-transition-dinosaurs-birds/#.UvpTELT1uI8

All it shows is that this bird is similar to dinosaurs. A praying mantis shares similar looking characteristics to tree branch but we dont assume they evolved from tree branches.

[The Nehor]

All it shows is that this bird is similar to dinosaurs. A praying mantis shares similar looking characteristics to tree branch but we dont assume they evolved from tree branches.

 

[Rob Osborn]

Being obtuse isn't one of your better qualities.

Im being serious. Just because something looks similar isnt evidence. There are birds alive today that have teeth, have claws on their wings, etc. But they arent dinosaurs. The famous archeoptyrex isnt even seen as the transitional fossil anymore. Your science just keeps moving the goalpost whenever you see fit.

[David T]

Im being serious. Just because something looks similar isnt evidence. There are birds alive today that have teeth, have claws on their wings, etc. But they arent dinosaurs. The famous archeoptyrex isnt even seen as the transitional fossil anymore. Your science just keeps moving the goalpost whenever you see fit.

 

You are simply demonstrating you don't understand the arguments.

[thesometimesaint]

Modern mature birds don't have teeth.

http://sciencequestionswithchris.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/when-do-birds-use-their-teeth/

 

Modern mature birds don't have claws on their wings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoatzin

 

All species of dinosaur, except birds, died out some 65 million years ago.

http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/cretaceous4.html

 

Archeopteryx is a transitional fossil of a type of dinosaur.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

[Rob Osborn]

Being obtuse isn't one of your better qualities.

Im being serious. Just because something looks similar isnt evidence. There are birds alive today that have teeth, have claws on their wings, etc. But they arent dinosaurs. The famous archeoptyrex isnt even seen as the transitional fossil anymore. Your science just keeps moving the goalpost whenever you see fit.

You are simply demonstrating you don't understand the arguments.

What argument though? Even I can draw a picture of some creature and suppose wat I think it came from and then go fibd a fossil close enough to prove myself. But wheres the argument? We are arguing over drawings and conjecture

[thesometimesaint]

Im being serious. Just because something looks similar isnt evidence. There are birds alive today that have teeth, have claws on their wings, etc. But they arent dinosaurs. The famous archeoptyrex isnt even seen as the transitional fossil anymore. Your science just keeps moving the goalpost whenever you see fit.

What argument though? Even I can draw a picture of some creature and suppose wat I think it came from and then go fibd a fossil close enough to prove myself. But wheres the argument? We are arguing over drawings and conjecture

 

That is exactly what evidence is. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks a duck, chances are good it is a duck. I've already shown you where you are wrong on those claims. These are not pictures of fantasy creatures. They are the fossilized remains of animals that lived a long time ago. So I repeat "Being obtuse isn't one of your better qualities".

[Rob Osborn]

That is exactly what evidence is. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks a duck, chances are good it is a duck. I've already shown you where you are wrong on those claims. These are not pictures of fantasy creatures. They are the fossilized remains of animals that lived a long time ago. So I repeat "Being obtuse isn't one of your better qualities".

Fairytales I say, fairytales.

[David T]

Fairytales I say, fairytales.

 

There is some pretty strong irony in that statement coming from you.

[Rob Osborn]

There is some pretty strong irony in that statement coming from you.

I finally found that video explaining how dinosaurs learned to fly. Its all good now-

 

https://www.nfb.ca/film/how_dinosaurs_learned_to_fly/

[thesometimesaint]

Fairytales I say, fairytales.

 

I know that is your claim. I've got the bones, but so far the only evidence you have produced for you claim, is mere assertion.

 

There is little to no evidence for fairies. However unicorns, satyrs, and cockatrice's are all claimed in Scripture written by Prophets of God.

[Rob Osborn]

I know that is your claim. I've got the bones, but so far the only evidence you have produced for you claim, is mere assertion.

 

There is little to no evidence for fairies. However unicorns, satyrs, and cockatrice's are all claimed in Scripture written by Prophets of God.

Because I disbelieve in macro evolution I instead point to the geologic column as testimony for the flood. That is my evidence- mountains of it.

[thesometimesaint]

I finally found that video explaining how dinosaurs learned to fly. Its all good now-

 

https://www.nfb.ca/film/how_dinosaurs_learned_to_fly/

 

Here is the real reason dinosaurs went extinct.

http://img18.exs.cx/img18/5859/aussterben.gif

[thesometimesaint]

Because I disbelieve in macro evolution I instead point to the geologic column as testimony for the flood. That is my evidence- mountains of it.

 

Macro evolution is a proven fact.

 

A Global Flood as described in Scripture is a physical impossibility.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[Skylla]

The personal attacks need to stop.  Get back on track.

 

Skylla

[teddyaware]

Macro evolution is a proven fact.

 

A Global Flood as described in Scripture is a physical impossibility.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

The resurrection of billions of the dead into glory and immortality from dust, as described in scripture, is a physical impossibility. Now what?

Edited February 12, 2014 by teddyaware

[Bikeemikey]

The resurrection of billions of the dead into glory and immortality from dust, as described in scripture, is a physical impossibility. Now what?

There is a difference between a proven impossibility and an unprovable possibility.

[Stone holm]

Modern mature birds don't have teeth.

http://sciencequestionswithchris.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/when-do-birds-use-their-teeth/

 

Modern mature birds don't have claws on their wings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoatzin

 

All species of dinosaur, except birds, died out some 65 million years ago.

http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/cretaceous4.html

 

Archeopteryx is a transitional fossil of a type of dinosaur.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

You are really wasting your energy here, the capture something in the middle of transition argument goes nowhere it proves nothing and cannot be disproved because the ardent Creationist will always say but that isn't that, and of course it isn't. Transition can only be shown by lining up species in a way which shows the vector of change, but of course you never find the man who is only half transformed into the Incredible Hulk, since each being is what it is at that snapshot generation.

[Rob Osborn]

Macro evolution is a proven fact.

 

A Global Flood as described in Scripture is a physical impossibility.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Macro evolution is a theory, not a fact.

[emarkp]

Macro evolution is a proven fact.

 

A Global Flood as described in Scripture is a physical impossibility.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

 

Argh.  A "Fact" is an observation.  (Fossils, layers of strata, temperature readings etc. are "facts").

 

Evolution is a theory, like gravitation and quantum mechanics -- a model that explains how the facts fit together.  And evolution has pretty solid evidence for it (not as much as the evidence, say, for a very old earth, but more than enough to convince me).

 

Try to get the facts straight.

[teddyaware]

There is a difference between a proven impossibility and an unprovable possibility.

You miss the point. The resurrection into glory and immortality is a miracle of the highest order and, according to the scriptures, began at the time when Christ and many others arose from the dead in the meridian of time. According to the scriptures this event actually did occur, now prove that is did? You can't because you're now in precisely the same spot as those who defend the flood.

 

The one thing you doubters always leave out of your thought processes is that God is A God of miracles. What's the more difficult miracle for God to perform, to raise millions from dust to immortal and eternal glory, or to temporarily change air molecules into water molecules (like water to wine) just long enough to immerse the earth in water?

15 And now, O all ye that have imagined up unto yourselves a god who can do no miracles, I would ask of you, have all these things passed, of which I have spoken? Has the end come yet? Behold I say unto you, Nay; and God has not ceased to be a God of miracles.

16 Behold, are not the things that God hath wrought marvelous in our eyes? Yea, and who can comprehendthe marvelous works of God?

17 Who shall say that it was not a miracle that by his word the heaven and the earth should be; and by the power of his word man was created of the dust of the earth; and by the power of his word have miracles been wrought?

18 And who shall say that Jesus Christ did not do many mighty miracles? And there were many mighty miracles wrought by the hands of the apostles.

19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

20 And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust. (Mormon 9)

Edited February 12, 2014 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

You miss the point. The resurrection into glory and immortality is a miracle of the highest order and, according to the scriptures, began at the time when Christ and many others arose from the dead in the meridian of time. According to the scriptures this event actually did occur, now prove that is did? You can't because you're now in precisely the same spot as those who defend the flood.

 

The one thing you doubters always leave out of your thought processes is that God is A God of miracles. What's the more difficult miracle for God to perform, to raise millions from dust to immortal and eternal glory, or to temporarily change air molecules into water molecules (like water to wine) just long enough to immerse the earth in water?

15 And now, O all ye that have imagined up unto yourselves a god who can do no miracles, I would ask of you, have all these things passed, of which I have spoken? Has the end come yet? Behold I say unto you, Nay; and God has not ceased to be a God of miracles.

16 Behold, are not the things that God hath wrought marvelous in our eyes? Yea, and who can comprehendthe marvelous works of God?

17 Who shall say that it was not a miracle that by his word the heaven and the earth should be; and by the power of his word man was created of the dust of the earth; and by the power of his word have miracles been wrought?

18 And who shall say that Jesus Christ did not do many mighty miracles? And there were many mighty miracles wrought by the hands of the apostles.

19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

20 And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust. (Mormon 9)

 

The God of Mormonism is a God of Miracles, but Miracles are simply the implementation of a better knowledge of natural laws than we currently have.  When it comes time, we will see that resurrection occurs as a result of the application of certain natural laws at which point it won't seem any more miraculous than watching a caterpiller emerge from a coccoon as a butterfly.

[thesometimesaint]

Macro evolution is a theory, not a fact.

 

It is both. In science a theory is more useful than a fact. A theory explains a fact. IE; That gravity exists is a fact. The Theory of Gravity explains how gravity works.

Edited February 12, 2014 by thesometimesaint