Evolution didn't happen

Babs took those pictures straight from Wikipedia. He is right, what was believed to be some kind of feathers turned out to be from a plant. But since then we have uncovered dinosaur remains with fully intact feathers on them. So your argument is moot.

Quote from: babsinva on November 15, 2009, 07:38:28 PM

B-T-W- they are not the only 3 men who have studied this- there are others - MANY MANY MANY.

Wow! Thats so cool! Oh wait, your just lying again.

Oh so finally someone agrees with something I said, - because your bud Pete called me liar.  Thanks for that one Chief.  However although they have found dinosaurs with feathers - they have also found some that were NOT.  I never said ALL - Raist was implying all, and my response was to that.  And it's not moot, because like i said they found some that were this way, and not moot because Many people feel the same way- see references cited.

Quote from: Masterchief2219 on November 15, 2009, 07:54:19 PM

Babs took those pictures straight from Wikipedia. He is right, what was believed to be some kind of feathers turned out to be from a plant. But since then we have uncovered dinosaur remains with fully intact feathers on them. So your argument is moot.

Oh so finally someone agrees with something I said, - because your bud Pete called me liar.  Thanks for that one Chief.  However although they have found dinosaurs with feathers - they have also found some that were NOT.  I never said ALL - Raist was implying all, and my response was to that.  And it's not moot, because like i said they found some that were this way, and not moot because Many people feel the same way- see references cited.

Quote from: Pete on November 15, 2009, 07:48:23 PM

Quote from: babsinva on November 15, 2009, 07:38:28 PM

B-T-W- they are not the only 3 men who have studied this- there are others - MANY MANY MANY.

Wow! Thats so cool! Oh wait, your just lying again.

Righty-O!  I am just a liar- just like the time you said the Lipson piece did not exist, nor the journal- and I proved it did, and even took pictures of the full article, and proved everything, but you just think I concoct everything in Adobe Illustrator or Photoshop.  Sure, yeah, OK Pete.  See references below on the many people who had studied this bird Gastornis and it's similar bird Diatryma.  

Bigelow, Phil (2006): Controversial Patterson "Diatryma footprint" slab has been moved. Posted on the Dinosaur Mailing List 2006-APR-02. HTML fulltext

Brodkorb, Pierce (1967): Catalogue of Fossil Birds: Part 3 (Ralliformes, Ichthyornithiformes, Charadriiformes). Bulletin of the Florida State Museum 11(3). PDF or JPEG fulltext

Buffetaut, Eric (2004): Footprints of Giant Birds from the Upper Eocene of the Paris Basin: An Ichnological Enigma. Ichnos 11(3-4): 357-362. doi:10.1080/10420940490442287 (HTML abstract)

Cockerell, Theodore Dru Alison (1923): The Supposed Plumage of the Eocene Bird Diatryma. American Museum Novitates 62: 1-4. PDF fulltext

Cope, Edward Drinker (1876): On a gigantic bird from the Eocene of New Mexico. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 28(2): 10-11.

Cox, Barry; Harrison, Colin; Savage, R.J.G. & Gardiner, Brian (1999): The Simon & Schuster Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Creatures: A Visual Who's Who of Prehistoric Life. Simon & Schuster.

Cuvier, Georges (1800): Sur les Ornitholithes de Montmartre ["On the bird fossils of Montmartre"]. Bulletin des Sciences par la société Philomatique de Paris 41: 129. PDF fulltext at Gallica.

Doughton, Sandi (2004): Big birds on the Green River? The debate continues. Seattle Times, 2004-DEC-06. HTML fulltext

Dughi, R. & Sirugue, F. (1959): Sur des fragments de coquilles d'oeufs fossiles de l'Eocène de Basse-Provence ["On fossil eggshell fragments from the Eocene of Basse-Provence"]. C. R. Hebd. Acad. Sci. Paris 249: 959-961 [Article in French]. PDF fulltext at Gallica.

Fabre-Taxy, Suzanne & Touraine, Fernand (1960): Gisements d'œufs d'Oiseaux de très grande taille dans l'Eocène de Provence ["Deposits of eggs from birds of very large size from the Eocene of Provence"]. C. R. Hebd. Acad. Sci. Paris 250(23): 3870-3871 [Article in French]. PDF fulltext at Gallica.
Haines, Tim & Chambers, Paul (2006) The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life. Firefly Books Ltd., Canada.

Hébert, E. (1855a): Note sur le tibia du Gastornis pariensis [sic] ["Note on the tibia of G. parisiensis"]. C. R. Hebd. Acad. Sci. Paris 40: 579-582 [Article in French]. PDF fulltext at Gallica.

Hébert, E. (1855b): Note sur le fémur du Gastornis parisiensis ["Note on the femur of G. parisiensis"]. C. R. Hebd. Acad. Sci. Paris 40: 1214-1217 [Article in French]. PDF fulltext at Gallica.

Lartet, E. (1855): Note sur le tibia d'oiseau fossile de Meudon ["Note on the fossil bird tibia from Meudon"]. C. R. Hebd. Acad. Sci. Paris 40: 582-584 [Article in French]. PDF fulltext at Gallica.

Lemoine, V. (1881a): Recherches sur les oiseaux fossiles des terrains tertiaires inférieurs des environs de Reims (Vol. 2): 75-170. Matot-Braine, Reims.

Lemoine, V. (1881b): Sur le Gastornis Edwardsii et le Remiornis Heberti de l'éocène inférieur des environs de Reims ["On G. edwardsii and R. heberti from the Lower Eocene of the Reims area"]. C. R. Hebd. Acad. Sci. Paris 93: 1157-1159 [Article in French]. PDF fulltext at Gallica.

Lyell, Charles (1865): Elements of Geology (6th ed.). J. Murray. HTML/PDF fulltext at Google Books.

Mlíkovský, Jirí (2002): Cenozoic Birds of the World, Part 1: Europe. Ninox Press, Prague. ISBN 80-901105-3-8 PDF fulltext

Prévost, Constant (1855): Annonce de la découverte d'un oiseau fossile de taille gigantesque, trouvé ?  la partie inférieure de l'argile plastique des terrains parisiens ["Announcement of the discovery of a fossil bird of gigantic size, found in the lower Argile Plastique formation of the Paris region"]. C. R. Hebd. Acad. Sci. Paris 40: 554-557 [Article in French]. PDF fulltext at Gallica.

Wetmore, Alexander (1930): The Supposed Plumage of the Eocene Diatryma. Auk 47(4): 579-580. DjVu fulltext PDF fulltext





 

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on November 15, 2009, 02:41:32 PM

RAWWRR-A-DoodleDOOOOOOOO!!!

Yeah. Or you could have posted an image of one of the dinosaurs that we happen to know, for fact, had feathers and/or wings.

Sometimes it is taught that evolution is true because the development of the fetus within the womb of the human mother allegedly goes through all the stages of evolution, from single cell to multi-cell to fish-like to ape-like to human. However, such a theory is based upon sketches proven to be fraudulent by the Jena University Court, and is unequivocally and absolutely rejected by modern embryologists. Thus, the infamous Recapitulation Theory is a complete fraud!
 
Moreover, although vestigial appendages sometimes appear temporarily during the embryonic stages of development for human beings and animals, that is not the issue at hand. For instance, just because human baby embryos go through a stage in which they grow, and then eventually lose, a set of gills, does not mean that they look like fish or that they are fish at that point in time. Naturally, there are going to be similarities at times among biological life-forms because the Divine Creator used a common biological structure and basis for creating all of them.

Sometimes it is taught that evolution is true because the development of the fetus within the womb of the human mother allegedly goes through all the stages of evolution, from single cell to multi-cell to fish-like to ape-like to human. However, such a theory is based upon sketches proven to be fraudulent by the Jena University Court, and is unequivocally and absolutely rejected by modern embryologists. Thus, the infamous Recapitulation Theory is a complete fraud!

For instance, just because human baby embryos go through a stage in which they grow, and then eventually lose, a set of gills, does not mean that they look like fish or that they are fish at that point in time. Naturally, there are going to be similarities at times among biological life-forms because the Divine Creator used a common biological structure and basis for creating all of them.

Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists

On one of the Galapagos islands whose finches shaped the theories of a young Charles Darwin, biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species splits in two.

In many ways, the split followed predictable patterns, requiring a hybrid newcomer who?d already taken baby steps down a new evolutionary path. But playing an unexpected part was chance, and the newcomer singing his own special song.

This miniature evolutionary saga is described in a paper published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It?s authored by Peter and Rosemary Grant, a husband-and-wife team who have spent much of the last 36 years studying a group of bird species known collectively as Darwin?s finches.

The finches ? or, technically, tanagers ? have adapted to the conditions of each island in the Galapagos, and they provided Darwin with a clear snapshot of evolutionary divergence when he sailed there on the HMS Beagle. The Grants have pushed that work further, with decades of painstaking observations providing a real-time record of evolution in action. In the PNAS paper, they describe something Darwin could only have dreamed of watching: the birth of a new species.

Sometimes it is taught that evolution is true because the development of the fetus within the womb of the human mother allegedly goes through all the stages of evolution, from single cell to multi-cell to fish-like to ape-like to human. However, such a theory is based upon sketches proven to be fraudulent by the Jena University Court, and is unequivocally and absolutely rejected by modern embryologists. Thus, the infamous Recapitulation Theory is a complete fraud!

Moreover, although vestigial appendages sometimes appear temporarily during the embryonic stages of development for human beings and animals, that is not the issue at hand. For instance, just because human baby embryos go through a stage in which they grow, and then eventually lose, a set of gills, does not mean that they look like fish or that they are fish at that point in time. Naturally, there are going to be similarities at times among biological life-forms because the Divine Creator used a common biological structure and basis for creating all of them.

Hey wow, I can use wikipedia too!

Evolution didn't happen, of course. A magic man in the sky that we can't see created us with magic in six days.

And then on the eighth day he made the transistor, lol.

Evolution didn't happen, of course. A magic man in the sky that we can't see created us with magic in six days.

Ive stopped posting in this thread.  My last two posts have been deleted.

Just wait...it will disappear too.  I think there is a conspiracy to eliminate me all together.  Its like I don't exist!!

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on November 20, 2009, 12:10:36 PM

Just wait...it will disappear too.  I think there is a conspiracy to eliminate me all together.  Its like I don't exist!!

Your like the McFly's in BTTF

NOT all dinosaurs that did have feathers were actually feathers.  There is also fossilized evidence of dinosaur birds that were supposedly feathered that were not.

Quote from: Jack1704 on November 20, 2009, 12:12:36 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on November 20, 2009, 12:10:36 PM

Just wait...it will disappear too.  I think there is a conspiracy to eliminate me all together.  Its like I don't exist!!

Your like the McFly's in BTTF

Doesn't Marty end up having sex with his mother? What are you implying?

Quote from: General Douchebag on November 20, 2009, 01:38:28 PM

Quote from: Jack1704 on November 20, 2009, 12:12:36 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on November 20, 2009, 12:10:36 PM

Just wait...it will disappear too.  I think there is a conspiracy to eliminate me all together.  Its like I don't exist!!

Your like the McFly's in BTTF

Doesn't Marty end up having sex with his mother? What are you implying?

I must have missed that bit!!!!

I'll never understand why people think evolution is at odds with a god.