Paleontologist Explains What The Fossils Really Say

[Hollie]

A global flood would cause what happened with the Himalayas and Mt. Everest (with limestone on top).

With The Cliffs of Dover, the oceans rose over the cliffs and left the chalk fossils from the seafloor on the sides of the cliffs with a volcanic action.

With The Grand Canyon, I agree it was erosion, but it happened in a short amount of time, i.e. not millions of years.

I doubt we will agree on geology as your side believes in uniformitarianism while my side is strictly catastrophism.

Creationers believe in many nonsensical things; a flat, 6,000 year old earth, talking snakes, etc.

There is no belief required in science. Science relies on hypothesis, testing and fact gathering.

BTW, the planet is spherical.

 

[james bond]

Nope. I don't think you're any authority to make that judgement.


I know quite a bit about fossils and geology at least compared to the knowledge you've displayed so far.


Concrete lasts longer than limestone here in VA so that is what I have.

>>I know quite a bit about fossils and geology at least compared to the knowledge you've displayed so far.<<

Okay, this is what I was going to post to abu afak as what needs to occur for birds from dinosaurs. You know my side doesn't believe in millions nor billions of years. Please explain what they are talking about.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/pala.12445

 

[alang1216]

A global flood would cause what happened with the Himalayas and Mt. Everest (with limestone on top).

How exactly would that work? Did the flood uplift the limestone or did it deposit the limestone? In either case, why there and not everywhere if it was global?

With The Cliffs of Dover, the oceans rose over the cliffs and left the chalk fossils from the seafloor on the sides of the cliffs with a volcanic action.

Is there any evidence of volcanism associated with the cliffs? Spoiler alert: there is none.

With The Grand Canyon, I agree it was erosion, but it happened in a short amount of time, i.e. not millions of years.

Where did the water come from, where did it go, and why only at that location?

I doubt we will agree on geology as your side believes in uniformitarianism while my side is strictly catastrophism.

I doubt we will agree on geology as my side is strictly evidence-based.

 

[alang1216]

>>I know quite a bit about fossils and geology at least compared to the knowledge you've displayed so far.<<

Okay, this is what I was going to post to abu afak as what needs to occur for birds from dinosaurs. You know my side doesn't believe in millions nor billions of years. Please explain what they are talking about.

Seems obvious to me, they are talking about differential preservation of feather components, not "birds from dinosaurs".

 

[james bond]

Did Parrots Evolve From Dinosaurs?​

Parrots share characteristics with certain dinosaurs that ruled the earth millions of years ago. They have similar biological features, such as short arms, beaks, and three-toed feet. This is because all birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Parrots are descended from a group of dinosaurs called theropods. Theropods were small, carnivorous dinosaurs that first appeared on earth over 200 million years ago. Over time, they grew smaller in size, lost their teeth, and their short arms evolved into wings.
Most paleontologists consider modern birds, including parrots, to be “living dinosaurs.” That’s because the first birds appeared on earth around 100 million years ago. Though they have changed considerably over time, their dinosaur-like features can still be identified.

How Are Birds Related to Dinosaurs?​

It may be hard to look at a bird and imagine that it had a ferocious, scaly, reptilian beast as an ancestor. However, every bird that currently walks (or flies) on this earth is descended from dinosaurs.

This includes wild birds like crows, farmed birds like chickens, and pet birds like parrots. If it has feathers and two wings, there are dinosaurs in its family tree. Biologists often refer to birds as “avian dinosaurs” or “living dinosaurs.”

It’s thought that birds separated from dinosaurs around 100 million years ago. Before then, birds didn’t exist, but theropods did. These were the small, carnivorous, bipedal dinosaurs that our feathered friends evolved from.

There’s evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Paleontologists have examined ancient fossils and found similarities between the skeletons of dinosaurs and modern birds.

They have also discovered a transitional fossil called Archaeopteryx. This species is thought to be the oldest bird and was very dinosaur-like in appearance. Upon its discovery, it was regarded as the missing link between birds and non-avian dinosaurs.

Do Birds and Dinosaurs Have a Common Ancestor?​

Because birds evolved from dinosaurs, it would be incorrect to say that birds and dinosaurs share a common ancestor. Rather, dinosaurs are the ancestors of modern birds. Specifically, birds are descended from a clade of dinosaurs called theropods.

Theropods evolved during the late Triassic period, around 200-250 million years ago. There were many different species of theropods, but they all shared certain characteristics:

• Carnivorous. All theropods were originally meat-eaters, though some groups evolved to eat plants over time.
• Bipedal. All theropods walked on two legs, just like modern birds. Most theropods had shortened, clawed forelimbs that may have been used to hold fish or climb trees.
• Three-toed. Theropods had three functional, clawed, scaly toes (most modern birds eventually evolved a fourth).
• Feathered. Some theropods were fully feathered (only retaining scales on their feet). Others had a mixture of feathers and scales in varying proportions.

The best-known theropod is the Tyrannosaurus rex. This ferocious dinosaur did share a common ancestor with birds. Tyrannosaurus rex was still walking the earth 65 million years ago, long after birds had already begun to evolve.

All birds originally evolved from theropods, as did other carnivorous dinosaurs. Over the millennia, birds diversified into several distinct families, all with different evolutionary adaptations.

The remaining dinosaurs, of course, perished in a mass extinction.

What Are the Similarities between Birds and Dinosaurs?​

[.......]
[.......]

Did Parrots Evolve from Dinosaurs?

Parrots share characteristics with certain dinosaurs that ruled the earth millions of years ago. They have short arms, beaks, and three-toed feet because birds evolved from dinosaurs. Parrots are descended […]

www.allaboutparrots.com

`

No, parrots aren't dinosaurs. The evidence shows they lived at the same time with the dinosaurs. There's no evidence of evolution.

Humans lived with dinosaurs though.

 

[Hollie]

No, parrots aren't dinosaurs. The evidence shows they lived at the same time with the dinosaurs. There's no evidence of evolution.

Humans lived with dinosaurs though.

Such is the profound ignorance spewed by religious extremists.

 

[james bond]

Such is the profound ignorance spewed by religious extremists.

Don't you love creation science? It's real science and is backed up by real science. Not the fake birds from dinosaurs bullshit.

 

[alang1216]

No, parrots aren't dinosaurs. The evidence shows they lived at the same time with the dinosaurs. There's no evidence of evolution.

If evolution is true and birds evolved from dinosaurs we'd expect to find:

• dinosaurs with feathers
• birds with scales
• dinosaurs with hollow, bird-like bones
• birds with teeth
• birds with dinosaur tails
• birds and dinosaurs with similar skeletons
• dinosaurs with beaks

And lo and behold, we find ALL these things.

Humans lived with dinosaurs though.

I thought creation science was based on evidence?

 

[Hollie]

Don't you love creation science? It's real science and is backed up by real science. Not the fake birds from dinosaurs bullshit.

There is no such discipline as 'creationer science'. The term is a false label used by Christian extremists.

 

[Hollie]

>>I know quite a bit about fossils and geology at least compared to the knowledge you've displayed so far.<<

Okay, this is what I was going to post to abu afak as what needs to occur for birds from dinosaurs. You know my side doesn't believe in millions nor billions of years. Please explain what they are talking about.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/pala.12445

It's important to understand that the creationer 'side' is a very small collection of religious extremists.

Your 'side' has an important role in contradicting your own feeble attempts at argument.

From the link you supplied: '' FOSSIL feathers play a pivotal role in our understanding of the evolutionary processes underlying the transition from non-avian dinosaurs to birds''.

Your insistence that fossils don't exist, that ''evilution'' is false was just contradicted.... by you.

Well done, Laddie.

 

[Wuwei]

>>I know quite a bit about fossils and geology at least compared to the knowledge you've displayed so far.<<

Okay, this is what I was going to post to abu afak as what needs to occur for birds from dinosaurs. You know my side doesn't believe in millions nor billions of years. Please explain what they are talking about.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/pala.12445

The text of the reference you posted mentions dinosaurs 2 times, and birds 3 times. It mentions feathers 63 times.
They are talking about the fossilization of fucking feathers.
It is obvious that you have no understanding at all of what you are parroting. (<-- Using an appropriate bird idiom.) And it is obvious why you want someone else to explain it for you.
.

 

[james bond]

Such is the profound ignorance spewed by religious extremists.

The atheists and you can't figure this out, huh?

One of the things I wondered is why the USG funds these atheist papers on evolution? After all, we're one nation under God, aren't we? Of course, we are. God is in the US Constitution and every state's constitution. I hear even "Jesus" is in the US Constitution.

The simple answer is that taxpayers would complain if the US funded Answers in Genesis or creation.com. Thus, they fund the so-called neutral science of atheism -- evolution -- or whatever flavor is the most popular. It goes to show how clever Satan is. Some believe the whore of Babylon to be the US.

 

[Hollie]

The atheists and you can't figure this out, huh?

One of the things I wondered is why the USG funds these atheist papers on evolution? After all, we're one nation under God, aren't we? Of course, we are. God is in the US Constitution and every state's constitution. I hear even "Jesus" is in the US Constitution.

The simple answer is that taxpayers would complain if the US funded Answers in Genesis or creation.com. Thus, they fund the so-called neutral science of atheism -- evolution -- or whatever flavor is the most popular. It goes to show how clever Satan is. Some believe the whore of Babylon to be the US.

Jeebus is nowhere in the body of the Constitution. Dear Zeus but you’re ignorant.

There is no such thing as ‘neutral science of atheism”. Bring that up at the next meeting at the Flat Earth Society.

 

[Wuwei]

Jeebus is nowhere in the body of the Constitution. Dear Zeus but you’re ignorant.

There is no such thing as ‘neutral science of atheism”. Bring that up at the next meeting at the Flat Earth Society.

You are right. Not only is Jesus not in the constitution but god is nowhere to be seen. I did a text search.

 

[james bond]

Such is the profound ignorance spewed by religious extremists.

This is why I get to keep saying, "Atheists must die." in order to know the truth. I ♥ writing that lol.

 

[james bond]

Jeebus is nowhere in the body of the Constitution. Dear Zeus but you’re ignorant.

There is no such thing as ‘neutral science of atheism”. Bring that up at the next meeting at the Flat Earth Society.

If I find Jesus in the US Constitution, will you fall down on your knees and beg for forgiveness? I'll give a discount with 50 lashes instead of customary 100. I'll even toss in the apple cider vinegar free of charge lol.

You already know God is on our money, so why not Jesus in the US Constitution?

ETA: Here it is, "in the Year of Our Lord" 1787.

 

[alang1216]

This is why I get to keep saying, "Atheists must die." in order to know the truth. I ♥ writing that lol.

Glad you enjoy it. Atheists believe we already know the truth and you theists will never know the truth. That only makes me sad for you.

 

[Hollie]

This is why I get to keep saying, "Atheists must die." in order to know the truth. I ♥ writing that lol.

Of course, dear. What a good thing we have laws to keep people like you on a short leash.

 

[Hollie]

If I find Jesus in the US Constitution, will you fall down on your knees and beg for forgiveness? I'll give a discount with 50 lashes instead of customary 100. I'll even toss in the apple cider vinegar free of charge lol.

You already know God is on our money, so why not Jesus in the US Constitution?

ETA: Here it is, "in the Year of Our Lord" 1787.

Yours is a common claim of religious extremists. You’re just another run of the mill religious extremist.


Let’s get this straight for the hyper-religious loons. The Constitution is very secular in nature. Not one mention of Christianity. In fact, no mention or reference to any of your gods in the body of the Constitution, which is what I identified for you earlier. Hyper-religious loons like to use the “in the year of our lord” reference but of course, that’s nonsense. A closing salutation of “in the year of our lord” was common for the time. The fact remains, nowhere in the body of the Constitution is there any mention of the Christian gods.

What is the ‘Year of our Lord’ doing on diplomas, government documents, and the Constitution?

'Year of our Lord' is a religious relic that has been mostly discarded. This anachronistic dating convention is reported to FFRF from time to time as a violation that disgraces

ffrf.org

​

"Year of our Lord" is a religious relic that has been mostly discarded. This anachronistic dating convention is reported to FFRF from time to time as...


As it turns out, the closing salutation you insist was a reference to the christian gods was not intended to be a part of the Constitution.

From the link:

The "Year of our Lord" language is not actually even part of the Constitution itself, which ends at Article VII. The phrase was not debated or ratified by the Constitutional Convention and it seems unlikely that it was even approved by the delegates. In all likelihood, it was a formalism unthinkingly added by the Constitution's scribe, Jacob Shallus. Perhaps most importantly, the language was not viewed as having any religious significance at the time. In short, the "Year of our Lord" phrase appended to the Constitution has no real legal or historical value

 

[james bond]

Glad you enjoy it. Atheists believe we already know the truth and you theists will never know the truth. That only makes me sad for you.

All you have to do is die and you'll know the truth that you have it backwards. That's the hard truth for the atheists. Don't be sad for me, but for you and your compadres here. I already figured it out as faith leads to God and science backs up the Bible.