Does his help you

[hobelim]

Can't help wonder how Noah got over 5 million different species on board the Ark. x2=10,000,000+ individuals. If you don't allow for evolution at least post-flood impossible!

Jesus specifically referred to various people as sheep, goats, donkeys, serpents, dogs, swine, foxes, wolves, worms, etc. as is consistent with a talking snake and the described wild beasts of the field in the OT.

If you consider that the animals brought 2 by 2 on board with Noah were of the human kind, there would have been no more than a couple dozen people.

As far as where did all the people go, genetic research suggests that about 75,000 years ago there was a cataclysmic event which reduced the human population from millions to a few thousand worldwide. Also a crater on the bottom of the Indian ocean suggests an impact event that would have instantaneously vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a worldwide deluge of super storms, tsunamis, etc which dates to the approximate time of the story of Gilgamesh which many believe the story of Noah was based on..

 

[SmedlyButler]

The evidence just keeps piling up. And you're right, I haven't seen any serious objection to the bird-dinosaur connection for a long time. To me it's wonderfully counter intuitive to picture the delicate hummingbird descended from the lumbering giants of my imagination. Nature gives us great mysteries to ponder.

"The origin of birds refers to the initial stages in the evolution of birds. The scientific consensus is 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 with preserved 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"
Origin of Birds- Wikipedia

SB

 

[SmedlyButler]

Can't help wonder how Noah got over 5 million different species on board the Ark. x2=10,000,000+ individuals. If you don't allow for evolution at least post-flood impossible!

Jesus specifically referred to various people as sheep, goats, donkeys, serpents, dogs, swine, foxes, wolves, worms, etc. as is consistent with a talking snake and the described wild beasts of the field in the OT.

If you consider that the animals brought 2 by 2 on board with Noah were of the human kind, there would have been no more than a couple dozen people.

As far as where did all the people go, genetic research suggests that about 75,000 years ago there was a cataclysmic event which reduced the human population from millions to a few thousand worldwide. Also a crater on the bottom of the Indian ocean suggests an impact event that would have instantaneously vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a worldwide deluge of super storms, tsunamis, etc which dates to the approximate time of the story of Gilgamesh which many believe the story of Noah was based on..

I haven't seen that Jesus passage, could you give me a citation. THX

SB

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most Evangelicals just won't give up that +/-6000 yr timeline. And you run into "Irreducible Complexity" all over the religious map. There are some Christian Astronomers I've heard who accept the billions of years they have to deal with and shoehorn them adroitly into the Genesis account by fiddling with the length of the "lord's day". If they're debating an Evangelical they'll be open to the charge of heresy. Some of the debates are highly informative as well as entertaining.

"The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?”

But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder."
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."

 

[emilynghiem]

And yet the eye in both is complex. Explain that. In the simplest of creatures or the most complex, for an eye to work, optic nerves have to grow in the eye and in the brain, find their match and join with it. In a human fetus, one million nerve endings per eye have to travel through flesh and find and match up to it's mate in the brain, one million times per eye.
The eye, if it worked, was never simple or in need of evolving to preform.

Dear Irish Ram: This reminds me of a Buddhist monk who pointed out the eye of the frog was already designed to develop while in the egg, not only to see but to specifically respond to colors and species in the environment that the frog needs to identify food and protection for survival. These external plants and animals developed "independently" yet are intricately part of the same system of life.

So how did all that "evolve" -- the interconnected relations and BALANCE between the elements in the ecosystem that necessitate each other's population and survival?

Clearly there is some natural law or order in life that is inherent in all things which are co-existing and interdependent.

 

[emilynghiem]

Most Evangelicals just won't give up that +/-6000 yr timeline. And you run into "Irreducible Complexity" all over the religious map. There are some Christian Astronomers I've heard who accept the billions of years they have to deal with and shoehorn them adroitly into the Genesis account by fiddling with the length of the "lord's day". If they're debating an Evangelical they'll be open to the charge of heresy. Some of the debates are highly informative as well as entertaining.

"The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?”

But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder."
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."

Dear PC they are equally dangerous in killing relations and the human spirit
if they are equally unforgiving of each other.

People who are forgiving are able to handle their differences, and not waste resources
fighting in conflict. This root of war is killing humanity and the planet. Both sides are guilty if we do not forgive and receive one another as equal members in relations and society.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually they are not even close to "exactly the same thing". That walking shark is cartilaginous and tetrapods have skeletons. An evolutionary biologist might call them good examples of convergent evolution. And you do know that scientists labeled this a transitional species and not I don't you? So that would make those scientists ignorant and me gullible? Also some people call extant species that resemble a long extinct animal "Living Fossils" They're quite common.

You seem to have anger issues, has anyone ever suggested therapy? Have to watch that blood pressure you know.

Your own article pointed out that the mudfish has the same basic pelvis, I simply used the walking shark to prove you know less about science than the average kid who reads the funny pages.

The Comic Strips - Cartoon View and Uses

 

[Mr. H.]

Creation was the briefest of moments. The rest is evolution. Get over it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The evidence just keeps piling up. And you're right, I haven't seen any serious objection to the bird-dinosaur connection for a long time. To me it's wonderfully counter intuitive to picture the delicate hummingbird descended from the lumbering giants of my imagination. Nature gives us great mysteries to ponder.

"The origin of birds refers to the initial stages in the evolution of birds. The scientific consensus is 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 with preserved 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"
Origin of Birds- Wikipedia

SB

The hummingbird is not descended from those lumbering giants in the real world, even if your imagination thinks they are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most Evangelicals just won't give up that +/-6000 yr timeline. And you run into "Irreducible Complexity" all over the religious map. There are some Christian Astronomers I've heard who accept the billions of years they have to deal with and shoehorn them adroitly into the Genesis account by fiddling with the length of the "lord's day". If they're debating an Evangelical they'll be open to the charge of heresy. Some of the debates are highly informative as well as entertaining.

"The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?”

But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder."
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."

Dear PC they are equally dangerous in killing relations and the human spirit
if they are equally unforgiving of each other.

People who are forgiving are able to handle their differences, and not waste resources
fighting in conflict. This root of war is killing humanity and the planet. Both sides are guilty if we do not forgive and receive one another as equal members in relations and society.

Really?

Some people say “If you can’t beat them, join them”. I say “If you can’t beat them, beat them”, because they will be expecting you to join them, so you will have the element of surprise.

Good plan?

 

[daws101]

Well Windbag...what can say. It's not like I made this shit up.
I don't know why science makes you so angry. And yes modeling of a fossil into a lifelike rendition is a science unto itself. I'm sure you've seen the process on CSI type shows. I'm just going to paste this whole article for anybody that's interested. BTW what was the video of the walking shark supposed to prove or disprove?

How we bring fossils 'back to life'
By Adam S. Smith
"When you see a drawing or model of a dinosaur, or even a 'live' one in a movie, how do you know that that is what they really looked like? Well, here is how it's done.

The first step in restoring the life appearance of any prehistoric creature is to discover its fossil remains. These fossils are usually made up of just the hard parts such as bone and shell, although special conditions do very rarely preserve soft parts. Once a fossil has been discovered, let's say of a dinosaur, the skeleton must then be reconstructed. This may be very difficult or very easy depending on how complete the remains are. Often only a few scrappy bones are preserved, so missing parts of the skeleton must be reconstructed by looking at close relatives. This gives us a good idea of what the missing parts of the animal looked like. For example we have a large number of complete fossils of Tyrannoaurus. If a new type of tyrannosaur is found with just a few bones, we may not know exactly what it looked like, but based on Tyrannosaurus we will have a very good idea of the shapes, size and numbers of the missing bones.

Sometimes complete skeletons are found, which makes this process much simpler, and if the bones are all articulated (joined together as they were in life so the feet are attached to the legs and the legs to the hips etc.) this is even easier. The natural posture of the animal can be determined by articulating each bone in the skeleton relative to the next. Computer simulations also allow palaeontologists to calculate the most balanced stance.

The skeletal reconstruction can be accomplished in two dimensions such as in an illustration of all the bones, or in three dimensions - the most obvious and striking examples of reconstructed skeletons can be seen on display in museums. Sometimes these mounted skeletons are genuine fossils, but often they are casts taken from the fossil bones - these are much lighter and easier to construct, and this also allows the real bones to be safely stored for protection and scientific investigation.

The next step is to reconstruct the muscles of the body around the skeleton. The position and size of the muscles can be determined by looking at the muscles of living animals, and their position and size is also indicated by scars and bumps on the fossil bones where the muscles once attached. The dinosaur is now ready to put on its skin. The skin texture is sometimes known from rare fossil impressions, but the colour is almost entirely guesswork. However, it is important to think about where the creature lived and how it may have behaved -many animals are camouflaged to their surrounding, so maybe animals from a desert were yellow whereas forest-dwelling animals were green. There are other subtle details to take into account at this stage, such as the type of eye and tongue. These features can be reconstructed with some confidence by looking at the closest living relatives of the prehistoric animal.

It is possible to stop here, but we can go a step further and figure out how the animal moved and sounded. Indeed, the most complete restorations or prehistoric animals are 3D mechanical creations, and computer generated 3D animations, such as those seen in 'Walking with Dinosaurs'. Fossil footprints provide good evidence for gait and posture, and when combined with an understanding of the flexibility and strength of joints, the fossil organisms can finally be brought back to life."

And, as we learn more, our representations become ever more accurate. I can remember when dinosaurs were thought to be slow moving cold blooded lizards. Now, we believe they were warm blooded, vibrant, fast and much more complex animals.

In fact there is one line of thought that believes the birds are descended from them.

it's not a line of thought it's fact


Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?


Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles. Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur, probably something similar (but not identical) to a small dromaeosaur. What is this evidence?

We'll spare you the exhaustive amount of available cladistic studies; those alone would make a large book if compiled. Dr. Jacques Gauthier, during his time as a graduate student of Professor Kevin Padian here at Berkeley, did his dissertation research on this subject, creating the first well accepted, detailed phylogeny of the diapsids. His work provided strong, compelling support for the theory that birds are theropod dinosaurs.

If we look back into the history of the issue, it is apparent that many comparative anatomists during the 16th through 19th centuries noticed that birds were very similar to traditional reptiles. In 1860, shortly after the publication of Charles Darwin's influential work On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, a quarry worker in Germany spotted an unusual fossil in the limestone of the Solnhofen Formation (late Jurassic period). This fossil turned out to be the famous 'London specimen' of Archaeopteryx lithographica. It was a beautiful example of a "transitional form" between two vertebrate groups (traditional reptiles and birds); just what Darwin expected would eventually be found. Archaeopteryx, generally accepted as being the oldest known bird, is an important link between birds and other coelurosaurs that has helped to illuminate the evolutionary history (phylogeny) of the group. It is now widely held to be the ancestor of all living birds; this is a common misconception. In fact, recent expeditions in China, Mongolia, Madagascar, Argentina, and elsewhere may uncover dinosaurs that usurp the "urvogel" status of Archaeopteryx.

Dinobuzz: Dinosaur-Bird Relationships

 

[daws101]

The evidence just keeps piling up. And you're right, I haven't seen any serious objection to the bird-dinosaur connection for a long time. To me it's wonderfully counter intuitive to picture the delicate hummingbird descended from the lumbering giants of my imagination. Nature gives us great mysteries to ponder.

"The origin of birds refers to the initial stages in the evolution of birds. The scientific consensus is 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 with preserved 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"
Origin of Birds- Wikipedia

SB

The hummingbird is not descended from those lumbering giants in the real world, even if your imagination thinks they are.

I almost gave your bullshit a pass...
not all dinosaurs were lumbering giants in fact there were many more small dinosaurs then large ones.
there is evidence that dinosaurs were warm blooded..

http://prehistoricwwb.files.wordpre...urus__past_and_present_by_brokenmachine86.jpg




one more thing there is no difference between the science and Techniques in forensic Reconstruction of partial human remains and dinosaurs...
proving windbag is just that!

 

[SmedlyButler]

It would help if we didn't try to fit every issue into a left-right box. For instance Evolution is a scientific theory. science does not regard right or left, only the evidence. You can argue the evidence, you can't ignore the evidence because you think it has some sort of political slant. Facts are facts without regard to any social judgement.

 

[daws101]

It would help if we didn't try to fit every issue into a left-right box. For instance Evolution is a scientific theory. science does not regard right or left, only the evidence. You can argue the evidence, you can't ignore the evidence because you think it has some sort of political slant. Facts are facts without regard to any social judgement.

spot on..if you hadn't noticed when certain posters believe their belief system is threatened it's time to get out the pitch forks and torches..and run the eviluotinists out of the village....

 

[hortysir]

Evolution is a religion now?

 

[daws101]

Evolution is a religion now?

no, not now or ever.
some people see it as a competitor for the hearts and minds of believers.

 

[SmedlyButler]

I didn't mean to suggest that all or most dinosaurs were "lumbering giants". Just that is the archetype we (or at least I) have carried from childhood. Thanks for the rational posts.

 

[daws101]

I didn't mean to suggest that all or most dinosaurs were "lumbering giants". Just that is the archetype we (or at least I) have carried from childhood. Thanks for the rational posts.

you didn't windbag did...not to worry!

 

[westwall]

Well Windbag...what can say. It's not like I made this shit up.
I don't know why science makes you so angry. And yes modeling of a fossil into a lifelike rendition is a science unto itself. I'm sure you've seen the process on CSI type shows. I'm just going to paste this whole article for anybody that's interested. BTW what was the video of the walking shark supposed to prove or disprove?

How we bring fossils 'back to life'
By Adam S. Smith
"When you see a drawing or model of a dinosaur, or even a 'live' one in a movie, how do you know that that is what they really looked like? Well, here is how it's done.

The first step in restoring the life appearance of any prehistoric creature is to discover its fossil remains. These fossils are usually made up of just the hard parts such as bone and shell, although special conditions do very rarely preserve soft parts. Once a fossil has been discovered, let's say of a dinosaur, the skeleton must then be reconstructed. This may be very difficult or very easy depending on how complete the remains are. Often only a few scrappy bones are preserved, so missing parts of the skeleton must be reconstructed by looking at close relatives. This gives us a good idea of what the missing parts of the animal looked like. For example we have a large number of complete fossils of Tyrannoaurus. If a new type of tyrannosaur is found with just a few bones, we may not know exactly what it looked like, but based on Tyrannosaurus we will have a very good idea of the shapes, size and numbers of the missing bones.

Sometimes complete skeletons are found, which makes this process much simpler, and if the bones are all articulated (joined together as they were in life so the feet are attached to the legs and the legs to the hips etc.) this is even easier. The natural posture of the animal can be determined by articulating each bone in the skeleton relative to the next. Computer simulations also allow palaeontologists to calculate the most balanced stance.

The skeletal reconstruction can be accomplished in two dimensions such as in an illustration of all the bones, or in three dimensions - the most obvious and striking examples of reconstructed skeletons can be seen on display in museums. Sometimes these mounted skeletons are genuine fossils, but often they are casts taken from the fossil bones - these are much lighter and easier to construct, and this also allows the real bones to be safely stored for protection and scientific investigation.

The next step is to reconstruct the muscles of the body around the skeleton. The position and size of the muscles can be determined by looking at the muscles of living animals, and their position and size is also indicated by scars and bumps on the fossil bones where the muscles once attached. The dinosaur is now ready to put on its skin. The skin texture is sometimes known from rare fossil impressions, but the colour is almost entirely guesswork. However, it is important to think about where the creature lived and how it may have behaved -many animals are camouflaged to their surrounding, so maybe animals from a desert were yellow whereas forest-dwelling animals were green. There are other subtle details to take into account at this stage, such as the type of eye and tongue. These features can be reconstructed with some confidence by looking at the closest living relatives of the prehistoric animal.

It is possible to stop here, but we can go a step further and figure out how the animal moved and sounded. Indeed, the most complete restorations or prehistoric animals are 3D mechanical creations, and computer generated 3D animations, such as those seen in 'Walking with Dinosaurs'. Fossil footprints provide good evidence for gait and posture, and when combined with an understanding of the flexibility and strength of joints, the fossil organisms can finally be brought back to life."

And, as we learn more, our representations become ever more accurate. I can remember when dinosaurs were thought to be slow moving cold blooded lizards. Now, we believe they were warm blooded, vibrant, fast and much more complex animals.

In fact there is one line of thought that believes the birds are descended from them.

it's not a line of thought it's fact


Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?


Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles. Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur, probably something similar (but not identical) to a small dromaeosaur. What is this evidence?

We'll spare you the exhaustive amount of available cladistic studies; those alone would make a large book if compiled. Dr. Jacques Gauthier, during his time as a graduate student of Professor Kevin Padian here at Berkeley, did his dissertation research on this subject, creating the first well accepted, detailed phylogeny of the diapsids. His work provided strong, compelling support for the theory that birds are theropod dinosaurs.

If we look back into the history of the issue, it is apparent that many comparative anatomists during the 16th through 19th centuries noticed that birds were very similar to traditional reptiles. In 1860, shortly after the publication of Charles Darwin's influential work On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, a quarry worker in Germany spotted an unusual fossil in the limestone of the Solnhofen Formation (late Jurassic period). This fossil turned out to be the famous 'London specimen' of Archaeopteryx lithographica. It was a beautiful example of a "transitional form" between two vertebrate groups (traditional reptiles and birds); just what Darwin expected would eventually be found. Archaeopteryx, generally accepted as being the oldest known bird, is an important link between birds and other coelurosaurs that has helped to illuminate the evolutionary history (phylogeny) of the group. It is now widely held to be the ancestor of all living birds; this is a common misconception. In fact, recent expeditions in China, Mongolia, Madagascar, Argentina, and elsewhere may uncover dinosaurs that usurp the "urvogel" status of Archaeopteryx.

Dinobuzz: Dinosaur-Bird Relationships

No, not fact. Theory. As we learn more we may change our line of thought again. That's the nature of science. Facts pile up and when enough facts have come together then you can alter your theory.

You are too interested in absolutes. That's the region of religion, not science.

 

[westwall]

The evidence just keeps piling up. And you're right, I haven't seen any serious objection to the bird-dinosaur connection for a long time. To me it's wonderfully counter intuitive to picture the delicate hummingbird descended from the lumbering giants of my imagination. Nature gives us great mysteries to ponder.

"The origin of birds refers to the initial stages in the evolution of birds. The scientific consensus is 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 with preserved 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"
Origin of Birds- Wikipedia

SB

The hummingbird is not descended from those lumbering giants in the real world, even if your imagination thinks they are.

I almost gave your bullshit a pass...
not all dinosaurs were lumbering giants in fact there were many more small dinosaurs then large ones.
there is evidence that dinosaurs were warm blooded..

http://prehistoricwwb.files.wordpre...urus__past_and_present_by_brokenmachine86.jpg




one more thing there is no difference between the science and Techniques in forensic Reconstruction of partial human remains and dinosaurs...
proving windbag is just that!

It was a fossil I found in the Morrison Formation decades ago, that showed just how complex the blood vessels were in coelophysis. It is a beautiful cross section of a forearm. The internal detail is incredible. Bakker loved it!