Creationists

[daws101]

Not trying to prove science wrong. Real science supports my views not yours. Real science is not faith based and a lot of what you believe are.

There is no real science that contradicts what I believe. Here let's administer the honesty test again. The bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind is that not supported by what we observe ?

yes there is... all REAL SCIENCE contradicts what you believe.
your belief is based on an unprovable false premise .
your belief begins with a PRE conceived conclusion ,that you have no evidence for
real science starts with evidence.

You are wrong no matter how many times you try to spin out of what you are hit with.

Let's see if you can explain what came first the chicken or the egg ? then explain how it came into existence on it's own.

most creatures on earth lay eggs or the eggs gestate inside some animals.(including humans)
there are exceptions
Source: How do Sharks Give Birth? - Answers.Ask.com
Most sharks give birth to live young, but some lay eggs. Depending on the species they can have between 1 and 135 babies at a time. I'd hate to be in the water when those 135 hungry babies are born!You can find more information here: http:/... Read More »
the platypus (a mammal)lays eggs.
birds including chickens (all decendants of dinosaurs) lay eggs.

the point is that eggs and chickens are one in the same.
you can't have one without the other.
All animals that lay eggs EVOLVED.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here we go again. 'Real' science supports my views. Not 'I base my views on science', rather, you determine what science is 'real' based on what you already believe. In other words, the science is not 'real' because you don't want it to be, not because of any flaw in data or methodology.

You've asked that question before on multiple occasions, and it's been answered more than once. I'm not going to bother getting into yet another drawn out discussion about your interpretations of biblical scripture. You are, obviously, free to believe whatever you want. Just realize that what you have not done is prove any of the science which goes against your beliefs to be wrong.

Really ? because there is no prroof how old the universe is nor how long life has existed on this planet.

There is no proof for macro-evolution ,none.

There is proof of adaptations but no proof that adaptations can produce a new family of organisms.

You know my question is right to the point that kinds reproduce their own kind. Science does support my view but it does not support your view that kinds reproduce other kinds,why is it that science does not support your view ?

None of which has anything to do with radiometric dating, or your ridiculous assertion that an inability to determine time of death to the instant somehow equates to a complete refutation of radiometric dating methods.

The age of the universe and the amount of time life has been on the planet are nothing but estimates. I have no problem acknowledging that.

There may not be proof of macro-evolution, the way you seem to mean it, but there is certainly evidence. You don't find it compelling, fine. Your point of view seems to be one of 'if I didn't see it, it didn't happen', though, and that is pretty silly.

Again, 4000 posts into this thread, we don't need to go over the same bs again. You don't believe in evolution. You don't believe that isotopes decay at the same rate when mankind isn't there to watch. You don't believe a tree falling makes a noise when no one is there to hear it. And you apparently are unwilling to accept that any of your disbelief is rooted entirely in your faith, instead claiming the science isn't 'real'.

Never said when a tree falls in the forest it does not make any noise. Why do you use something that is a fact with something that has never been observed or can never be verified. So you are relying on someone's opinion that it happened the way you believe it happened. But with no observation you are relying on faith to believe such a thing. Bottomline man cannot prove many things you believe you have to rely on faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

yes there is... all REAL SCIENCE contradicts what you believe.
your belief is based on an unprovable false premise .
your belief begins with a PRE conceived conclusion ,that you have no evidence for
real science starts with evidence.

You are wrong no matter how many times you try to spin out of what you are hit with.

Let's see if you can explain what came first the chicken or the egg ? then explain how it came into existence on it's own.

most creatures on earth lay eggs or the eggs gestate inside some animals.(including humans)
there are exceptions
Source: How do Sharks Give Birth? - Answers.Ask.com
Most sharks give birth to live young, but some lay eggs. Depending on the species they can have between 1 and 135 babies at a time. I'd hate to be in the water when those 135 hungry babies are born!You can find more information here: http:/... Read More »
the platypus (a mammal)lays eggs.
birds including chickens (all decendants of dinosaurs) lay eggs.

the point is that eggs and chickens are one in the same.
you can't have one without the other.
All animals that lay eggs EVOLVED.

Now answer the question. You are wrong again if the chicken was created male and female eventually you have the egg. If you have no chicken male and female you have no egg. So once again creation makes more logical sense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Before you make a comment fertilized egg where you get offspring.

 

[daws101]

You are wrong no matter how many times you try to spin out of what you are hit with.

Let's see if you can explain what came first the chicken or the egg ? then explain how it came into existence on it's own.

most creatures on earth lay eggs or the eggs gestate inside some animals.(including humans)
there are exceptions
Source: How do Sharks Give Birth? - Answers.Ask.com
Most sharks give birth to live young, but some lay eggs. Depending on the species they can have between 1 and 135 babies at a time. I'd hate to be in the water when those 135 hungry babies are born!You can find more information here: http:/... Read More »
the platypus (a mammal)lays eggs.
birds including chickens (all decendants of dinosaurs) lay eggs.

the point is that eggs and chickens are one in the same.
you can't have one without the other.
All animals that lay eggs EVOLVED.

Now answer the question. You are wrong again if the chicken was created male and female eventually you have the egg. If you have no chicken male and female you have no egg. So once again creation makes more logical sense.

cue buzzer...ever heard of animals that change sex?ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2009) — Most animals, like humans, have separate sexes — they are born, live out their lives and reproduce as one sex or the other. However, some animals live as one sex in part of their lifetime and then switch to the other sex, a phenomenon called sequential hermaphroditism. What remains a puzzle, according to Yale scientists, is why the phenomenon is so rare, since their analysis shows the biological "costs" of changing sexes rarely outweigh the advantages.
Why Don't More Animals Change Their Sex?


OR
Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization. A more stringent definition is agamogenesis which is reproduction without the fusion of gametes. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as the archaea, bacteria, and protists. Many plants and fungi reproduce asexually as well.

While all prokaryotes reproduce asexually (without the formation and fusion of gametes), mechanisms for lateral gene transfer such as conjugation, transformation and transduction are sometimes likened to sexual reproduction.[1] A complete lack of sexual reproduction is relatively rare among multicellular organisms, particularly animals. It is not entirely understood why the ability to reproduce sexually is so common among them. Current hypotheses [2] suggest that asexual reproduction may have short term benefits when rapid population growth is important or in stable environments, while sexual reproduction offers a net advantage by allowing more rapid generation of genetic diversity, allowing adaptation to changing environments. Developmental constraints[3] may underlie why few animals have relinquished sexual reproduction completely in their life-cycles.

Asexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the point is you don't need a male and female to reproduce or lay eggs..
either that's evolution or god is fucking with us...

 

[daws101]

Before you make a comment fertilized egg where you get offspring.

I don't speak pseudo English...

 

[Montrovant]

Really ? because there is no prroof how old the universe is nor how long life has existed on this planet.

There is no proof for macro-evolution ,none.

There is proof of adaptations but no proof that adaptations can produce a new family of organisms.

You know my question is right to the point that kinds reproduce their own kind. Science does support my view but it does not support your view that kinds reproduce other kinds,why is it that science does not support your view ?

None of which has anything to do with radiometric dating, or your ridiculous assertion that an inability to determine time of death to the instant somehow equates to a complete refutation of radiometric dating methods.

The age of the universe and the amount of time life has been on the planet are nothing but estimates. I have no problem acknowledging that.

There may not be proof of macro-evolution, the way you seem to mean it, but there is certainly evidence. You don't find it compelling, fine. Your point of view seems to be one of 'if I didn't see it, it didn't happen', though, and that is pretty silly.

Again, 4000 posts into this thread, we don't need to go over the same bs again. You don't believe in evolution. You don't believe that isotopes decay at the same rate when mankind isn't there to watch. You don't believe a tree falling makes a noise when no one is there to hear it. And you apparently are unwilling to accept that any of your disbelief is rooted entirely in your faith, instead claiming the science isn't 'real'.

Never said when a tree falls in the forest it does not make any noise. Why do you use something that is a fact with something that has never been observed or can never be verified. So you are relying on someone's opinion that it happened the way you believe it happened. But with no observation you are relying on faith to believe such a thing. Bottomline man cannot prove many things you believe you have to rely on faith.

The tree falling thing I used as an example of your thinking. Are you saying the rate of isotope decay has never been observed?

Let me put it this way. If the rate of decay of a particular isotope has been observed, and is always constant; if the rate is the same no matter where the isotope is found or what environment it is found in; if tests have been done to see if environmental changes have any effect on the decay rate; if all those things are true, does your argument not become, "No one is there to see it in the past, so it can't be treated as accurate."? Is that not pretty much the same as saying, "No one was around to hear the tree fall, so no one knows if it made a sound."? In both cases there is a lack of direct observational data. Why do you accept the one but not the other as fact?

Whatever the case, your use of the word faith is not quite the same as when used in terms of spiritual belief.

 

[Azrael]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

I don't believe it's that young,
but I also believe that God created it.
After all whats a day to a God any way?
If shes all powerful then her concept of time would not be linear but all encompassing n she would exist in time always.

 

[Youwerecreated]

most creatures on earth lay eggs or the eggs gestate inside some animals.(including humans)
there are exceptions
Source: How do Sharks Give Birth? - Answers.Ask.com
Most sharks give birth to live young, but some lay eggs. Depending on the species they can have between 1 and 135 babies at a time. I'd hate to be in the water when those 135 hungry babies are born!You can find more information here: http:/... Read More »
the platypus (a mammal)lays eggs.
birds including chickens (all decendants of dinosaurs) lay eggs.

the point is that eggs and chickens are one in the same.
you can't have one without the other.
All animals that lay eggs EVOLVED.

Now answer the question. You are wrong again if the chicken was created male and female eventually you have the egg. If you have no chicken male and female you have no egg. So once again creation makes more logical sense.

cue buzzer...ever heard of animals that change sex?ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2009) — Most animals, like humans, have separate sexes — they are born, live out their lives and reproduce as one sex or the other. However, some animals live as one sex in part of their lifetime and then switch to the other sex, a phenomenon called sequential hermaphroditism. What remains a puzzle, according to Yale scientists, is why the phenomenon is so rare, since their analysis shows the biological "costs" of changing sexes rarely outweigh the advantages.
Why Don't More Animals Change Their Sex?


OR
Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization. A more stringent definition is agamogenesis which is reproduction without the fusion of gametes. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as the archaea, bacteria, and protists. Many plants and fungi reproduce asexually as well.

While all prokaryotes reproduce asexually (without the formation and fusion of gametes), mechanisms for lateral gene transfer such as conjugation, transformation and transduction are sometimes likened to sexual reproduction.[1] A complete lack of sexual reproduction is relatively rare among multicellular organisms, particularly animals. It is not entirely understood why the ability to reproduce sexually is so common among them. Current hypotheses [2] suggest that asexual reproduction may have short term benefits when rapid population growth is important or in stable environments, while sexual reproduction offers a net advantage by allowing more rapid generation of genetic diversity, allowing adaptation to changing environments. Developmental constraints[3] may underlie why few animals have relinquished sexual reproduction completely in their life-cycles.

Asexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the point is you don't need a male and female to reproduce or lay eggs..
either that's evolution or god is fucking with us...

So you are gonna avoid the obvious answer to the question by presenting so called evidence you can't prove happened with the chicken.

You are spinning again.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Before you make a comment fertilized egg where you get offspring.

I don't speak pseudo English...

No you believe in pseudo science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

None of which has anything to do with radiometric dating, or your ridiculous assertion that an inability to determine time of death to the instant somehow equates to a complete refutation of radiometric dating methods.

The age of the universe and the amount of time life has been on the planet are nothing but estimates. I have no problem acknowledging that.

There may not be proof of macro-evolution, the way you seem to mean it, but there is certainly evidence. You don't find it compelling, fine. Your point of view seems to be one of 'if I didn't see it, it didn't happen', though, and that is pretty silly.

Again, 4000 posts into this thread, we don't need to go over the same bs again. You don't believe in evolution. You don't believe that isotopes decay at the same rate when mankind isn't there to watch. You don't believe a tree falling makes a noise when no one is there to hear it. And you apparently are unwilling to accept that any of your disbelief is rooted entirely in your faith, instead claiming the science isn't 'real'.

Never said when a tree falls in the forest it does not make any noise. Why do you use something that is a fact with something that has never been observed or can never be verified. So you are relying on someone's opinion that it happened the way you believe it happened. But with no observation you are relying on faith to believe such a thing. Bottomline man cannot prove many things you believe you have to rely on faith.

The tree falling thing I used as an example of your thinking. Are you saying the rate of isotope decay has never been observed?

Let me put it this way. If the rate of decay of a particular isotope has been observed, and is always constant; if the rate is the same no matter where the isotope is found or what environment it is found in; if tests have been done to see if environmental changes have any effect on the decay rate; if all those things are true, does your argument not become, "No one is there to see it in the past, so it can't be treated as accurate."? Is that not pretty much the same as saying, "No one was around to hear the tree fall, so no one knows if it made a sound."? In both cases there is a lack of direct observational data. Why do you accept the one but not the other as fact?

Whatever the case, your use of the word faith is not quite the same as when used in terms of spiritual belief.

You know there are many factors in considering the rate of decay for anything.

 

[Youwerecreated]

most creatures on earth lay eggs or the eggs gestate inside some animals.(including humans)
there are exceptions
Source: How do Sharks Give Birth? - Answers.Ask.com
Most sharks give birth to live young, but some lay eggs. Depending on the species they can have between 1 and 135 babies at a time. I'd hate to be in the water when those 135 hungry babies are born!You can find more information here: http:/... Read More »
the platypus (a mammal)lays eggs.
birds including chickens (all decendants of dinosaurs) lay eggs.

the point is that eggs and chickens are one in the same.
you can't have one without the other.
All animals that lay eggs EVOLVED.

Now answer the question. You are wrong again if the chicken was created male and female eventually you have the egg. If you have no chicken male and female you have no egg. So once again creation makes more logical sense.

cue buzzer...ever heard of animals that change sex?ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2009) — Most animals, like humans, have separate sexes — they are born, live out their lives and reproduce as one sex or the other. However, some animals live as one sex in part of their lifetime and then switch to the other sex, a phenomenon called sequential hermaphroditism. What remains a puzzle, according to Yale scientists, is why the phenomenon is so rare, since their analysis shows the biological "costs" of changing sexes rarely outweigh the advantages.
Why Don't More Animals Change Their Sex?


OR
Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization. A more stringent definition is agamogenesis which is reproduction without the fusion of gametes. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as the archaea, bacteria, and protists. Many plants and fungi reproduce asexually as well.

While all prokaryotes reproduce asexually (without the formation and fusion of gametes), mechanisms for lateral gene transfer such as conjugation, transformation and transduction are sometimes likened to sexual reproduction.[1] A complete lack of sexual reproduction is relatively rare among multicellular organisms, particularly animals. It is not entirely understood why the ability to reproduce sexually is so common among them. Current hypotheses [2] suggest that asexual reproduction may have short term benefits when rapid population growth is important or in stable environments, while sexual reproduction offers a net advantage by allowing more rapid generation of genetic diversity, allowing adaptation to changing environments. Developmental constraints[3] may underlie why few animals have relinquished sexual reproduction completely in their life-cycles.

Asexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the point is you don't need a male and female to reproduce or lay eggs..
either that's evolution or god is fucking with us...

So you are trying to suggest the first chicken accomplished the fertilization of the egg through asexual fertilization ? please forgive me So in other words the chicken came first meaning it was created complete.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

I don't believe it's that young,
but I also believe that God created it.
After all whats a day to a God any way?
If shes all powerful then her concept of time would not be linear but all encompassing n she would exist in time always.

But the word does mention the length of a day to God, It's not mans 24 hour period.

 

[Douger]

The Gawds, yes plural-look in your script, showed up and did another DNA modification 6000 or so years ago. The experiment was an epic failure, as were the first two. Let's hope the Mayans were right.

 

[daws101]

Now answer the question. You are wrong again if the chicken was created male and female eventually you have the egg. If you have no chicken male and female you have no egg. So once again creation makes more logical sense.

cue buzzer...ever heard of animals that change sex?ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2009) — Most animals, like humans, have separate sexes — they are born, live out their lives and reproduce as one sex or the other. However, some animals live as one sex in part of their lifetime and then switch to the other sex, a phenomenon called sequential hermaphroditism. What remains a puzzle, according to Yale scientists, is why the phenomenon is so rare, since their analysis shows the biological "costs" of changing sexes rarely outweigh the advantages.
Why Don't More Animals Change Their Sex?


OR
Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization. A more stringent definition is agamogenesis which is reproduction without the fusion of gametes. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as the archaea, bacteria, and protists. Many plants and fungi reproduce asexually as well.

While all prokaryotes reproduce asexually (without the formation and fusion of gametes), mechanisms for lateral gene transfer such as conjugation, transformation and transduction are sometimes likened to sexual reproduction.[1] A complete lack of sexual reproduction is relatively rare among multicellular organisms, particularly animals. It is not entirely understood why the ability to reproduce sexually is so common among them. Current hypotheses [2] suggest that asexual reproduction may have short term benefits when rapid population growth is important or in stable environments, while sexual reproduction offers a net advantage by allowing more rapid generation of genetic diversity, allowing adaptation to changing environments. Developmental constraints[3] may underlie why few animals have relinquished sexual reproduction completely in their life-cycles.

Asexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the point is you don't need a male and female to reproduce or lay eggs..
either that's evolution or god is fucking with us...

So you are trying to suggest the first chicken accomplished the fertilization of the egg through asexual fertilization ? please forgive me So in other words the chicken came first meaning it was created complete.

no, but there is no doubt that you would see it that way...chickens like all other egg laying animals come from a common ancestor. so your ASSUMPTION that the first chicken self fertilized is as ignorant as it is stupid.
you also conveniently leave out that chickens are domesticated animals and that humans have been breeding them for at least ten thousand years.
the point is, what species of bird was what we now call chickens.
keep in mind birds are descendant from dinosaurs

 

[Youwerecreated]

cue buzzer...ever heard of animals that change sex?ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2009) — Most animals, like humans, have separate sexes — they are born, live out their lives and reproduce as one sex or the other. However, some animals live as one sex in part of their lifetime and then switch to the other sex, a phenomenon called sequential hermaphroditism. What remains a puzzle, according to Yale scientists, is why the phenomenon is so rare, since their analysis shows the biological "costs" of changing sexes rarely outweigh the advantages.
Why Don't More Animals Change Their Sex?


OR
Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization. A more stringent definition is agamogenesis which is reproduction without the fusion of gametes. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as the archaea, bacteria, and protists. Many plants and fungi reproduce asexually as well.

While all prokaryotes reproduce asexually (without the formation and fusion of gametes), mechanisms for lateral gene transfer such as conjugation, transformation and transduction are sometimes likened to sexual reproduction.[1] A complete lack of sexual reproduction is relatively rare among multicellular organisms, particularly animals. It is not entirely understood why the ability to reproduce sexually is so common among them. Current hypotheses [2] suggest that asexual reproduction may have short term benefits when rapid population growth is important or in stable environments, while sexual reproduction offers a net advantage by allowing more rapid generation of genetic diversity, allowing adaptation to changing environments. Developmental constraints[3] may underlie why few animals have relinquished sexual reproduction completely in their life-cycles.

Asexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the point is you don't need a male and female to reproduce or lay eggs..
either that's evolution or god is fucking with us...

So you are trying to suggest the first chicken accomplished the fertilization of the egg through asexual fertilization ? please forgive me So in other words the chicken came first meaning it was created complete.

no, but there is no doubt that you would see it that way...chickens like all other egg laying animals come from a common ancestor. so your ASSUMPTION that the first chicken self fertilized is as ignorant as it is stupid.
you also conveniently leave out that chickens are domesticated animals and that humans have been breeding them for at least ten thousand years.
the point is, what species of bird was what we now call chickens.
keep in mind birds are descendant from dinosaurs

No it just shows you as ignorant and disingenuous in debating.

Prove the chicken came from dinosaurs,this should be interesting.

 

[daws101]

So you are trying to suggest the first chicken accomplished the fertilization of the egg through asexual fertilization ? please forgive me So in other words the chicken came first meaning it was created complete.

no, but there is no doubt that you would see it that way...chickens like all other egg laying animals come from a common ancestor. so your ASSUMPTION that the first chicken self fertilized is as ignorant as it is stupid.
you also conveniently leave out that chickens are domesticated animals and that humans have been breeding them for at least ten thousand years.
the point is, what species of bird was what we now call chickens.
keep in mind birds are descendant from dinosaurs

No it just shows you as ignorant and disingenuous in debating.

Prove the chicken came from dinosaurs,this should be interesting.

your first sentence is just more evidence that you're a liar.
as to the second : The origin of birds has historically been a contentious topic within evolutionary biology. However, most researchers now support the view that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.

A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany. Birds share many unique skeletal features with dinosaurs.[1] Moreover, fossils of more than twenty species of dinosaur have been collected which preserve feathers. There are even very small dinosaurs, such as Microraptor and Anchiornis, which have long, vaned, arm and leg feathers forming wings. The Jurassic basal avialan Pedopenna also shows these long foot feathers. Witmer (2009) has concluded that this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that avian evolution went through a four-winged stage.[2]

Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors. The ground-breaking discovery of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue allowed a molecular comparison of cellular anatomy and protein sequencing of collagen tissue, both of which demonstrated that T. rex and birds are more closely related to each other than either is to Alligator.[3] A second molecular study robustly supported the relationship of birds to dinosaurs, though it did not place birds within Theropoda, as expected. This study utilized eight additional collagen sequences extracted from a femur of Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a hadrosaur.[4]

Origin of birds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Youwerecreated]

no, but there is no doubt that you would see it that way...chickens like all other egg laying animals come from a common ancestor. so your ASSUMPTION that the first chicken self fertilized is as ignorant as it is stupid.
you also conveniently leave out that chickens are domesticated animals and that humans have been breeding them for at least ten thousand years.
the point is, what species of bird was what we now call chickens.
keep in mind birds are descendant from dinosaurs

No it just shows you as ignorant and disingenuous in debating.

Prove the chicken came from dinosaurs,this should be interesting.

your first sentence is just more evidence that you're a liar.
as to the second : The origin of birds has historically been a contentious topic within evolutionary biology. However, most researchers now support the view that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.

A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany. Birds share many unique skeletal features with dinosaurs.[1] Moreover, fossils of more than twenty species of dinosaur have been collected which preserve feathers. There are even very small dinosaurs, such as Microraptor and Anchiornis, which have long, vaned, arm and leg feathers forming wings. The Jurassic basal avialan Pedopenna also shows these long foot feathers. Witmer (2009) has concluded that this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that avian evolution went through a four-winged stage.[2]

Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors. The ground-breaking discovery of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue allowed a molecular comparison of cellular anatomy and protein sequencing of collagen tissue, both of which demonstrated that T. rex and birds are more closely related to each other than either is to Alligator.[3] A second molecular study robustly supported the relationship of birds to dinosaurs, though it did not place birds within Theropoda, as expected. This study utilized eight additional collagen sequences extracted from a femur of Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a hadrosaur.[4]

Origin of birds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is your proof what a brilliant mind.

 

[daws101]

No it just shows you as ignorant and disingenuous in debating.

Prove the chicken came from dinosaurs,this should be interesting.

your first sentence is just more evidence that you're a liar.
as to the second : The origin of birds has historically been a contentious topic within evolutionary biology. However, most researchers now support the view that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.

A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany. Birds share many unique skeletal features with dinosaurs.[1] Moreover, fossils of more than twenty species of dinosaur have been collected which preserve feathers. There are even very small dinosaurs, such as Microraptor and Anchiornis, which have long, vaned, arm and leg feathers forming wings. The Jurassic basal avialan Pedopenna also shows these long foot feathers. Witmer (2009) has concluded that this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that avian evolution went through a four-winged stage.[2]

Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors. The ground-breaking discovery of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue allowed a molecular comparison of cellular anatomy and protein sequencing of collagen tissue, both of which demonstrated that T. rex and birds are more closely related to each other than either is to Alligator.[3] A second molecular study robustly supported the relationship of birds to dinosaurs, though it did not place birds within Theropoda, as expected. This study utilized eight additional collagen sequences extracted from a femur of Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a hadrosaur.[4]

Origin of birds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is your proof what a brilliant mind.

is this your retort? what an ignorant asshole!
a classic non answer !

 

[Youwerecreated]

your first sentence is just more evidence that you're a liar.
as to the second : The origin of birds has historically been a contentious topic within evolutionary biology. However, most researchers now support the view that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.

A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany. Birds share many unique skeletal features with dinosaurs.[1] Moreover, fossils of more than twenty species of dinosaur have been collected which preserve feathers. There are even very small dinosaurs, such as Microraptor and Anchiornis, which have long, vaned, arm and leg feathers forming wings. The Jurassic basal avialan Pedopenna also shows these long foot feathers. Witmer (2009) has concluded that this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that avian evolution went through a four-winged stage.[2]

Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors. The ground-breaking discovery of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue allowed a molecular comparison of cellular anatomy and protein sequencing of collagen tissue, both of which demonstrated that T. rex and birds are more closely related to each other than either is to Alligator.[3] A second molecular study robustly supported the relationship of birds to dinosaurs, though it did not place birds within Theropoda, as expected. This study utilized eight additional collagen sequences extracted from a femur of Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a hadrosaur.[4]

Origin of birds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is your proof what a brilliant mind.

is this your retort? what an ignorant asshole!
a classic non answer !

You have not heard wiki can kill brain cells ? I guess I'm little late in warning you. But I would still like you to answer the questions asked of you.