Sciencescience

Tue Jan 1, 2019, 09:35 AM

Did Dinosaurs Come with or without Feathers?


BY JERRY BERGMAN, PH.D. * | FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2018

Many secular scientists consider so-called “feathered dinosaurs” to be evidence of dinosaurs evolving into birds. Clearly defined anatomy-based categories exist for both “bird” and “dinosaur,” but evolution requires a bird-to-dinosaur transition.1 In living creatures, only birds—not mammals or reptiles—have feathers. Furthermore, with a few controversial exceptions,2 all extinct feathered animals are acknowledged as birds. Even bird-feather proteins called keratins are unique.3

The use of feathers to fly “affects virtually every aspect of feather design and construction.”4 A flight feather has a long, slender central shaft called a rachis. From this extend the barbs, and from these extend the even smaller barbules. The barbules on one side of the barb are smooth, but, like Velcro, they link to tiny hook-shaped barbules on the opposite side.

Assuming hypothetical feathers on dinosaurs functioned as modern feathers do, they must consist of all the required working parts. Even the angle, thickness, shape, and construction of the parts must all exist and be assembled within narrow tolerances.5 So far, Darwinists have only impressions of “protofeathers” that they assume were structures on the way to becoming modern feathers. But until they became functional feathers, it appears they would have decreased a creature’s fitness, making them less likely to persist in future generations.6

Consequently, a biblical creation worldview rejects the supposition that protofeathers were structures on the way to evolving into flight feathers. So, what were they? Possibly skin collagen fibers, not feathers. Some resemble fossil preparation marks, which are caused by tools used to uncover and excavate fossils. For these reasons, many researchers are “skeptical of inferring feathers when there are no feathers preserved” with bona fide dinosaurs in the fossil record.7

The difficulties in determining whether or not a fossil is a feathered dinosaur are many. Most fossils consist only of fragmented skeletal parts. Others show only ambiguous impressions in stone. Unfamiliar creatures that demonstrate evidence of feather-like structures may have been unusual birds like today’s ostrich—not dinosaurs.

For these and other reasons, even some evolutionists have rejected the “feathered dinosaur” conclusion.8 Rather, they interpret the fibers not as protofeathers but as partly decayed integument, which is skin or hide.9 Theagarten Lingham-Soliar suggests that because the Sinosauropteryx fossil was found associated with lake biota, it was probably semiaquatic. Filaments that grew from its skin resembled the smooth, downy feathers used in pillows. They may have helped waterproof it like modern duck feathers.10

No evidence for feather evolution exists. Feathers in the fossil record are consistently fully formed. Tweet: No evidence for feather evolution exists. Feathers in the fossil record are consistently fully formed.

No evidence for feather evolution exists. Feathers in the fossil record are consistently fully formed.11 Extensive study of one of the oldest known feathers—a 69-millimeter-long, well-preserved, claimed Archaeopteryx feather—reveals that all its major details match those of modern bird feathers.12 Thus, one might expect to find fully developed feathers on dinosaurs, but “protofeather” fibers don’t fill the bill.

Without the wishful evolutionary thinking, the current evidence suggests that protofeathers were not structures evolving into feathers but likely decayed skin with fossilized collagen fibers remaining. Further research may change the conclusion that feathered dinosaurs did not exist, but until then we must go with the existing evidence, which disputes the feathered dinosaur theory. This conclusion takes the wind out of the sails of an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.

References

Sloan, C. 1999. Feathers for T. rex? National Geographic. 196 (5): 99-103.
Although evolutionists have described some extinct feathered animals as links between dinosaurs and birds, each such designation is contested by other evolutionists.
Brush, A. H. 1996. On the origin of feathers. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 9: 131-142.
Witmer, L. M. 1995. The Search for the Origin of Birds. New York: Franklin Watts, 9.
Tarsitano, S. F. et al. 2000. On the Evolution of Feathers from an Aerodynamic and Constructional View Point. American Zoologist. 40 (4): 676-686.
Thomas, B. and J. Sarfati. 2018. Researchers remain divided over ‘feathered dinosaurs.’ Journal of Creation. 32 (1): 121-127.
McLain, M. A., M. Petrone, and M. Speights. 2018. Feathered dinosaurs reconsidered: New insights from baraminology and ethnotaxonomy. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism. J. H. Whitmore, ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 477.
For both sides’ position, see Davis, M. J. 1991. The Case of the Flying Dinosaur. Boston: NOVA.
Feduccia, A. 1999. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; Feduccia, A., T. Lingham-Soliar, and J. R. Hinchliffe. 2005. Do Feathered Dinosaurs Exist? Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontological Evidence. Journal of Morphology. 266: 125-166.
Lingham-Soliar, T. 2012. The evolution of the feather: Sinosauropteryx, life, death, and preservation of an alleged feathered dinosaur. Journal of Ornithology. 153 (3): 699-711.
Brush, On the origin of feathers, 132.
Parkes, K. C. 1966. Speculations on the origin of feathers. Living Bird. 5: 77-86.
* Dr. Bergman holds multiple degrees and is a former adjunct associate professor at the University of Toledo Medical School in Ohio.

Cite this article: Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. 2019. Did Dinosaurs Come with or without Feathers?. Acts & Facts. 48 (1).

44 replies, 595 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply Did Dinosaurs Come with or without Feathers? (Original post)
nolidad Jan 1 OP
quad489 Jan 1 #1
nolidad Jan 1 #2
SatansSon666 Jan 3 #19
Micrometer Jan 1 #3
nolidad Jan 1 #6
Micrometer Jan 1 #10
nolidad Jan 2 #14
SatansSon666 Jan 2 #15
Micrometer Jan 4 #24
Micrometer Jan 6 #26
nolidad Jan 6 #27
Micrometer Jan 6 #29
nolidad Jan 9 #36
SatansSon666 Jan 9 #37
Micrometer Jan 14 #42
Micrometer Jan 20 #43
nolidad Jan 6 #28
Micrometer Jan 6 #30
nolidad Jan 6 #31
Micrometer Jan 8 #34
nolidad Jan 9 #38
SatansSon666 Jan 9 #39
nolidad Jan 9 #40
SatansSon666 Jan 9 #41
SatansSon666 Jan 8 #35
nolidad Jan 7 #32
SatansSon666 Jan 7 #33
rampartb Jan 1 #4
nolidad Jan 1 #7
SatansSon666 Jan 2 #12
freedumb2003 Jan 1 #5
nolidad Jan 1 #8
freedumb2003 Jan 1 #9
nolidad Jan 3 #16
freedumb2003 Jan 3 #17
nolidad Jan 3 #20
freedumb2003 Jan 3 #21
SatansSon666 Jan 4 #22
nolidad Jan 4 #23
SatansSon666 Jan 5 #25
SatansSon666 Jan 3 #18
SatansSon666 Jan 2 #11
SatansSon666 Jan 2 #13
TheShoe Jan 20 #44

Response to nolidad (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2019, 09:48 AM

1. If only some cortisone creams were around for them...oh that's right, THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 1, 2019, 10:06 AM

2. It has come full circle.

"Science" and "scientists" have now become the sect of choice and they will brook no disagreement with their consensus and hypotheses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 11:27 AM

19. Bull fucking shit.

Science is all about disagreement and proving things wrong.
I didn't think you could be more wrong about anything than you already are.
Yet. .
There it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2019, 10:22 AM

3. A biblical creation worldview is not science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 1, 2019, 05:28 PM

6. Neither is an evolutionist worldview.

Both are tenets of faith accepted by people.

However empirical repeatable observable science lends far more support to the creation worldview than it does to the big bang/evolutionistic worldview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 1, 2019, 06:01 PM

10. Please show evidence that supports creation.


empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience
rather than theory or pure logic.

repeatable: able to be done again.

observable: able to be noticed or perceived; discernible.

science: a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of
testable explanations and predictions about the universe.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 07:40 AM

14. As you left your request so nebulous, I can only reply generically.

But all these have been verified by the scientific method. If you want some technical reports, I can link you to the archives.

https://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/

https://www.icr.org/evidence-recent/

Also we have never seen mutations cause vertical evolution as predicted by Creationism.

We also observe and verify that mutations ultimately degrade species.

We have yet to observe mutation and natural selection produce new genera or families as predicted by creationism.


We do see each "kind" reproducing after itself.

Observation has verified that large canyons can form rapidly, not millions of years by supposed slow erosion.

https://www.icr.org/mutation-buildup

https://www.icr.org/fresh-fossils

https://www.icr.org/living-fossils/

https://www.icr.org/rate

These are but a few of the verified research projects that show support for the biblical model of creation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 08:16 AM

15. First, ICR is not a research journal.

None of their shit is published because none of it makes sense.

Yes we have seen "vertical" evolution in the lab and in the field. With plants and animals.

Yes we have seen beneficial mutations. Not all mutations harm a species and some that originally were detrimental can become useful later on. That is documented too.

Large canyons cannot form rapidly. I assume you'll talk about Mt. St. Helens. Which was carved through ash deposits and not solid limestone and sandstone.
You'll say it was, but it certainly wasn't. Only the loons believe that.
There should be a grand Canyon on every continent then. There isn't because Noah's flood did not happen

In order for a change to occur at the genus level a lot of time and selection has to take place. Thousands of generations. Something the ICR loons disregard because they are idiots.

Of course "kinds" reproduce after themselves.
If a dog have birth to a cat it would disprove evolution. No where in the theory of evolution does it say one "kind" gives birth to a completely different kind. It occurs in populations not single living organisms.
POPULATIONS!!!!

It makes no sense to believe what you believe. None.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 4, 2019, 07:31 PM

24. Please show evidence that supports creation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 09:22 AM

26. Please show evidence that supports creation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #26)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 09:39 AM

27. Well if you wish not to read

I cannot help you!

I do not even think you understand the premise of scientific creationism.

It uses the bible as its hypothesis then seeks to research to see if the declarations of scripture have any merit in science.

Just like scientists today use the scripture of Darwin as its hypothesis and then researches to see if their scripture has any merit in science.

Empirical provable testable repeatable observable science lends more support to the creation model than the evolution model! I use evolution because even astrophysicists call teh BB a form of evolution, so for this discussion when I say evolution I mean the theories containing the BB through microbes to man which is the narrative secularism accepts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 09:47 AM

29. You keep making that claim, yet provide no evidence.

"Empirical provable testable repeatable observable science lends more
support to the creation model than the evolution model!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 9, 2019, 09:02 AM

36. READ THE LINKS I PROVIDED FOR YOU

Then I will provide more.

But some generic evidences:

The Bible declares God commands each to reproduce after their own kind and all testable repeatable observable science shows just that.

Testable repeatable verifiable science shows the universe and earth are far younger than the radio dating methods which have now been proven fatally flawed.

God destroyed the world with a flood, and we have global evidence of that catastrophe. Even the fossil record proves catastrophe and destruction by ever rising waters.

Scripture explains "mtEve" and the three DNA trunk lines of all humanity that have been verified by science (
Shem, Ham, Japheth)

Scripture explains the birth of nations and the root stocks of languages and even declares the migration of many of the "fathers" of nations. (Genesis 10 and 11).

These are very general statements but are the truths that science can and has verified (though using the failed dating methods)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 9, 2019, 09:07 AM

37. ICR is not scientific research.

Lmao.
Creationism is not science. At all.
It's a bunch of loons running around reading papers and trying to use the research for their own means. It's all lies and dishonesty. That's all they do. All they are are lunatics.



Everything you said there is wrong other than the bible quotes. Which also isn't science.

Poor nolidad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #36)

Mon Jan 14, 2019, 07:36 PM

42. I read many of those links. None of those provide evidence to support creationism.

In this thread, you have asserted: "empirical repeatable observable science
lends far more support to the creation worldview"

Please, in a few paragraphs, summarize your best evidence supporting creationism.


Another assertion you make is there are only two possibilities: God or nothing.

"No-God proves Himself!

But right now the 2 choices are God or nothing! Do you have a third that does not involve intelligence or the Big Bang????? Do you have any evidence to make it more than just a random idea tossed out by some theoretical physicist?"

There are many claims of the creation. What makes your particular faith correct?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #36)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 03:58 PM

43. Are you ignoring me?

I read many of those links. None of those provide evidence to support creationism.

In this thread, you have asserted: "empirical repeatable observable science
lends far more support to the creation worldview"

Please, in a few paragraphs, summarize your best evidence supporting creationism.


Another assertion you make is there are only two possibilities: God or nothing.

"No-God proves Himself!

But right now the 2 choices are God or nothing! Do you have a third that does not involve intelligence or the Big Bang????? Do you have any evidence to make it more than just a random idea tossed out by some theoretical physicist?"

There are many claims of the creation. What makes your particular faith correct?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 09:43 AM

28. Each producing after its own kind.

We see it test it repeat it observe it!

We have not seen one kind turn to another kind.

All we have is the opinion of men looking at fossilized bones and then conjecturing that this was an intermediary between one kind and another! They were not there, have only a minimal clue as to the living structure that fossil supported etc.etc.etc.

We have not seen undirected random mutations increase complexity in a genome or produce new features in a creature once.

That alone destroys the foundation of evolution!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 09:50 AM

30. Destroying the foundation of evolution doesn't prove God.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 04:13 PM

31. No-God proves Himself!

But right now the 2 choices are God or nothing! Do you have a third that does not involve intelligence or the Big Bang????? Do you have any evidence to make it more than just a random idea tossed out by some theoretical physicist?

But I posted several links for you to look at that show the scientific support for creation science.

Read them and learn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 07:08 AM

34. Your links only refute evolution.

Please show evidence that supports creation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 9, 2019, 09:24 AM

38. OK HERE ARE SOME MORE!

https://www.icr.org/article/new-dna-study-confirms-noah/

https://www.icr.org/article/mantle-water-flux-indicates-young-ocean/

https://www.icr.org/article/are-polar-ice-sheets-only-4500-years-old/

https://www.icr.org/conscience

https://www.icr.org/living-fossils

Included in this is the discovery of soft tissue in dinos supposedly extinct from anywhere of 65 to 520 million years!

Testable repeatable observable science shows that soft tissue cannot survive those time frames. As predicted by scripture

Mt. St. Helena area is a testable repeatable observable fact that proves massive canyons do not need millions of years to form, but that water, mud and heat can form canyons very very quickly along with thousands of sedimentary layers.

If these are not satisfactory, please pose a more speicifc question so that II can try to post a more specific answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #38)

Wed Jan 9, 2019, 10:32 AM

39. You fucking believe everything those idiots tell you.

I'd feel bad for you if the true information wasn't available to you, but it is, so I don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 9, 2019, 02:22 PM

40. A thought for you.

Yes I do alot of dismantling the falsehoods of the evolutionary hypothesis.

Why is that important? Because by showing evolution and its hypotheses are not true- it shows the Bible is more credible in its simplistic language about how we got here!

Besides the fact that all that we can test, ob serve and repeat validates that the bible is correct in that God created each after its own kind! And it happened thousands not millions and billions of years ago!

Also all that we can test, observe and even repeat on a smaller scale validates the flood and its aftermath!~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 9, 2019, 02:25 PM

41. Disproving evolution would not make the bible true by default.

Poor nolidad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 01:36 PM

35. Wrong.

Who says there are only 2 choices?
Why is god even in there?
That's a logical fallacy.
One of the many you spew out with every post you make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #30)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 07:48 AM

32. And I did nothing to destroy the foundations of evolution.

Evolutionists themselves built their ideas on quicksand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #32)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 08:24 AM

33. Lmao..

You have them confused with the primitive losers that penned your ridiculous holy book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2019, 11:24 AM

4. there are many fossils that show the transition from small lizard looking dinosaur

to a feathered and winged version. impossible in 5,000 years, but given 5,000 centuries many generations of changes can occur.

have you seen anything on the "coywolf" wolf/coyote/dog hybrid that has evolved over the last 200 years. about 40 lbs of nocturnal pack hunter that eats small animals and garbage common near humans. they are blamed for many missung cats and dogs and it is a matter of time before they take down children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 1, 2019, 05:33 PM

7. Well then you can be the first that show the transition from

scale to feather and limb to wing!

And the transition is assumed not proven! Not one fossil exists showing the evolution of the feather! Every one has been debunked not only by Creation Scientists but by evolutionary scientists as well!

Coy dogs is not evolution- it is hybridization. It is simply;y inter fertile species within a kind breeding and creating new species of the same kind- all started as dogs and all ended as dogs! Evolution demands that it start as a dog and end as something other than a dog! so as not to muddy the waters- we are talking Big E evolution or goo to you by way of the zoo- microbes to man!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 06:36 AM

12. A wing IS a limb.

Ffs..

Lmao

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2019, 03:07 PM

5. Stick to scripture friend, and leave science to people who understand this

 

Other than the hatetheists (who really are not atheists at all but merely hate God), people here respect your posting of applicable bible passages and your theology.

Stay there and quit posting this kind of nonsense. It is as silly an meaningless as AGW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedumb2003 (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 1, 2019, 05:34 PM

8. Well in case you do not know origins are a big part of ones theology or lack thereof.

How man got here is stated ini the bible and the science that can be tested, repeated and observed as well as the lapplicable laws of science lend far more support to Creation ex-Deo than they do to Evolution ex-nihilo!

Christians are even warned to beware of science falsely so called!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 1, 2019, 05:39 PM

9. You cannot repeat and test creation

 

Nor can you scientifically posit a Creator and prove using the Scientific method that he exists.

That is why God demands faith.

Creationism and it's retarded brother Intelligent Design meet no scientific standards.

It does not mean God does not exist. He does and He sent His Only Son to die for all of us (even the nonbelievers). But God will not be tested by man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedumb2003 (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 07:47 AM

16. Nor can you test or repeat

the big bang

abiogenesis

macro evolution or microbes to man

nor can you posit nothing bringing everything into existence

That is why bioth creation and evolution are tenets of faith and not part of empirical science.

They are both models, and once again empirical science lends more support to Creation than to BB and evolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 08:16 AM

17. abiogenesis is not a prerequisite to TToE

 

Any more than it is for geology nor physics.

The entire medical fields of immunology is TToE in action. Immunity to antibiotics is TToE in action and applied. There are caes such as in NY where flies in the subway cannot breed with flies outside due to Evolution. There are billions of artifacts all of whose existence is scientifically explained by TToE. Creationism just says "God put them there."

Creationism is NOT a model. It is a philosophy.

As I said, stick with theology/philosophy. Science is NOT for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedumb2003 (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 05:30 PM

20. nor did I imply it was!

and immunology is adaptation find naturally withing the genome! It is not adding new information nor vertical advancing a genre to a new benre which is the requisite for the hypothesis of darwinian evolution. Nearly every species has an immune system. That is not evidence of evolution but design.

And for the flies? that is a loss of information in the subway flies, the normal direction over 99.95% of mutations take-- that is evolution in reverse!!!!! The subway fly is less robust not more robust- the exact opposite of the requisites of TToE.

For yoru subway fly- remove him from that speicalized enviornment with its mix of harmful toxins, put him back in a normal enviornmenty and that gly will not thrive but phase out compared to the non mutated fly! It is an inferior sub speicies, not a superior sub species!

You can rant all you want the Creation is not a model-- but it is. Deal with it!

Thanks for showing two false ideas of evolution-in action!

Once again verifiable provable science lends more support to the creation model than the BB/evolution model.

Your fly stayed a fly and all immunized creatures stay the same kind of creature, now with an immunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 05:38 PM

21. You use science words but with no meaning

 

In summary:

"naturally withing the genome" is a semantically null statement. Mutations occur and they manifest new survival traits.

There is no "loss of information." There is mutation. You apply semantics to a scientific phenomenon.

Creationism is not a model. There is no way to model it. I can create a model that simulates TToE and many have done so.

Your misrepresentation of "false ideas of TToE" is simply your inability to understand the science behind them.

Creationism meets exactly zero criteria for a Scientific Theory (same as AGW btw). TToE meets them all.

Please stop making a fool of yourself. It is is embarrassing to Conservatives who know science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedumb2003 (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 4, 2019, 05:13 AM

22. He'll never change.

The loons have him too tight in their grasp.
He simply cannot accept evolution because of his beliefs. He can't understand that evolution doesn't disprove god at all. It makes no mention of God.
He sees it as an attempt to disprove god because he's delusional.
He interprets the bible literally and we all know that the facts about the natural world do not agree with the bible. It was an early attempt to explain the natural world, one of the first, so of course it's going to be the worst.
It's incredibly frustrating to see someone so ignorant of science pretending to know more than the people that have dedicated their lives to solving these problems. All because of some creationist organisations who would love nothing more than to destroy everything we know in order to promote complete falsehoods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedumb2003 (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 4, 2019, 06:11 PM

23. YOu really are bereft of science knowledge.

"naturally withing the genome" is not a null statement. it simply means it is a trait that already exists in a genome

"There is no "loss of information." There is a loss of information. This mutation alters the genome and reduces the information pool in the genome. You are now doen to 2nd grade understanding!

"Creationism is not a model. There is no way to model it. I can create a model that simulates TToE and many have done so. "

Instead of regurgutating the vomit of many secularists- maybe you should look at the creation models!

"Creationism meets exactly zero criteria for a Scientific Theory (same as AGW btw). TToE meets them all."

Wrong again benighted one!

Scientific theory | Define Scientific theory at Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:

We have not observed Darwinian evolution,nor have we been able to experiment to cause Darwinian evolution to take place! Evolution is a hypotheses not supported by scientific fact.

"Your misrepresentation of "false ideas of TToE" is simply your inability to understand the science behind them."


"Yawn". Please come up with a new lie- this one has been borrowed so many times it is getting tattered!

"Please stop making a fool of yourself. It is is embarrassing to Conservatives who know science."

I will just use your 2 examples to show how you do not know science, but are parroting without investigation the thoughts of others!

Your fly example. 1st. It remained the same species of fly! 2nd. It lost the ability to mate with its non polluted brethren! 3rd. If taken out of the toxic environment of the subway, it would go extinct! 4th it loss genetic information through mutation (as is the direction of mutation- down not up) and became a less viable segment of the species.

Immunology! There are very very very few examples of a creature mutating an immune response. The most common and well known is the carefully grown e-coli bacteria. They became antibiotic resistant and thrive in antibiotic thick environment. But once again it comes with a great price! It can only survive in that antibiotic rich environment, and once someone who takes ab's is removed from them- the ecoli dies . It does not thrive in a "normal" environment.

Also most creatures have built in to their genome an immune system that causes a defense when a virus, bacteria, etc. attacks the system. Many creatures also develop immunities against diseases once infected and successfully fought off. this is not mutation, but a natural occurring event from preexisting information found in the genome! Also the creature remains the same creature. it does not become a new creature.

Remember we are not talking evolution in its generic sense- but the BigE evolution- microbes to man by
random undirectred mutations preserved and passed on by natural selection- as the hypotheses goes.

both models fall outside of science because both cannot be validated by the scientific method.

However the creation model is more supported by known proven laws of science and working theories that have been validated by direct observation or experimentation.

I will pose this again. If you are such a believer in big E evolution- then show the evolution of scales to feathers!

Numerous evolutionists have declared this a fact. So simply show th eevidence upon which this "fact" is based on!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 06:12 AM

25. You have nothing so you resort to petty insults.

I mock you for a reason. A reason plain as day, a reason everyone can see.
You simply do not understand anything you are talking about.
You hear pseudoscience bullshit from disgraced bloggers and taken it as gospel because it confirms your beliefs.
It's the most dishonest position a person can have and you have it in spades.
It's sad you'll never know the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 10:58 AM

18. Macroevolution has been observed.

You can't test something that happened 14 billion years ago.
However you can observe evidence today that confirms it.
Expansion, CBR.
That's your problem with science, you simply do not understand it beyond a simplistic elementary school definition.
You have to project your faults onto others by calling it faith. Totally dishonest behavior. However, you learned your behavior regarding science from the loons. Not completely your fault, but your inability to understand basic scientific terms and methods is indeed your own fault.
Like your distinction between macro and micro evolution. You absolutely do not know what those terms mean.

So if you want to discuss macroevolution you had better clearly define it. No moving goalposts and changing definitions.
You won't.
The loons have taken you too far down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 04:45 AM

11. Only a creationist loon

Like Jerry Bergman can look at a fossil that has feathers and say the fossil doesn't have feathers.
Birds are still dinosaurs. The same way we are still mammals no matter how much we change, we will still always be mammals.
That's what the loons will never understand about evolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 06:58 AM

13. Let's check out his loon credentials to see how loony Mr. Bergman is.

Got PhD from an unaccredited correspondence school that was shut down? Check.

Does not hold a degree in the field he is reporting on? Check.

Makes ridiculous outlandish statements about Charles Darwin? Check.

No peer reviewed published scientific research papers? Check.

Reduced to writing a blog for creationist loon organizations? Check.

Says evolution leads to Hitler? Check.

Blames atheists and "evolutionists" for him not being able to secure tenure at universities? Check.


Yup, he checks out.

Certified loon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 20, 2019, 06:46 PM

44. Lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience