The evolution thread

The entire creation vs evolution debate is ridiculous and irrelavent. Seriously, how can the ideas of creationism, which stem from the bible, be relavent, if the very book itself is a false testament of 2 false religions. Prove to me the legitmacy the bible first.

Go ahead, google away creationists. Try me.

Main part of religion is that you unconditionally believe something, based on some stories. Stories I believe in are written in the bible, and so far they make since to me.
Everything evolution theorizes about can be explained in terms of creation. And "the evidence" that you may have that supports your story is based on assumptions that you may or may not know about, but you still believe your evidence.
So to sum up, the entire creation vs evolution debate is ridiculous and irrelevant because it is a debate between two religions.

As for you question, I will give a couple of many examples that indicate that bible was written or inspired by a higher power.

-In Genesis it talks about the seed of the woman in terms of reproduction. Up until 18-th century it was believed that only men provide seed (genetic material) and a woman is just a shell for baby development. If bible is a fake how come such information is in there since way before 18-th century?

-In Leviticus among many laws there is one that instructs to wash your hands after you take a dump or handle something dead. In the same 18-century, after the discovery of microorganisms, all hospitals implemented mandatory rule about washing hands before any procedures. Again how would people who "faked" the bible know about microorganisms?

The first example is largely allegorial; there's no reason to assume the Bible was written by anyone with special scientific knowledge for the time. In the second example there is no reason to believe they knew anything about microorganisms; hand-washing was learned millennia ago, through trial-and-error; they realized people who washed their hands didn't get sick as often.

Ah-ha, so all evidence of evolution can be explained in terms of creationism? What about the fossils, then? What about the fact that creationists claim that evolution cannot produce new information, yet also claim all humans are descended from eight people on the ark, even though the range of the modern human genome contains hundreds of times as much different genetic information as could possibly have been expressed in only eight people?

As for those "assumptions" you think I am making, could it possibly be the assumption creationists love to drone on about, the assumption of constant rates of radioactive decay? Hmm, I suppose it's possible that if there had been higher decay rates in the past, the amount of radioactive decay we observe today could have happened in only 6,000 years. What the creationist 'scientists' forgot to mention to you is that, if rates were so much higher in the past that all the decay we see now could have accumulated in only 6,000 years, the Earth would have been burned to a radioactive cinder.

The supernatural can, of course explain anything- but homologous and vestigial structures are better explained by common descent.

You think so? I already told you the function of coccyx in your body, and I think it is very important one. BTW animals, like apes, have a vertebra that has the same function as coccyx in human body. The only difference is that apes have more vertebrae after coccyx which form a tail that has different function than coccyx. And the fact that the functions are the same can be explained by a common design.

Are there any other structures in your body that you think you don't need?

The first example is largely allegorial; there's no reason to assume the Bible was written by anyone with special scientific knowledge for the time.

And yet the fact remains. You see a distinction between seed of a woman and seed of men.

In the second example there is no reason to believe they knew anything about microorganisms; hand-washing was learned millennia ago, through trial-and-error; they realized people who washed their hands didn't get sick as often.

Didn't you read my post, I said it was realized in 18-century, not millennia ago. Doctor who proposed this, noticed unusual amount (I think it was 40%) of women died shortly after giving birth in that hospital, than he found out that all women who died were assisted in delivery by a doctors that performed autopsy on dead people before. After he proposed the rule he was fired, only years later microorganisms were discovered and washing hands rule was set for all hospitals.

The whole point of these examples is that people of that time could not have possibly known about microbes or female genetic material, and yet it is documented in the oldest book in the world. Could it be because they had some help from a higher being?

Both of your examples are of things that were common knowledge thousands of years ago and were only ignored during the middle ages. Micro-organisms as the cause of disease weren't dicsovered until the 19th century, but it was common knowledge that hygiene had a role in disease prevention thousands of years ago- such facts were merely forgotten during the middle ages. All other so-called 'holy' texts have similar examples. Are they divinely inspired, as well?

Both of your examples are of things that were common knowledge thousands of years ago and were only ignored during the middle ages. Micro-organisms as the cause of disease weren't dicsovered until the 19th century, but it was common knowledge that hygiene had a role in disease prevention thousands of years ago- such facts were merely forgotten during the middle ages. All other so-called 'holy' texts have similar examples. Are they divinely inspired, as well?

You got any facts that they were "common knowledge thousands of years ago"?

Quote from: "dysfunction"

Both of your examples are of things that were common knowledge thousands of years ago and were only ignored during the middle ages. Micro-organisms as the cause of disease weren't dicsovered until the 19th century, but it was common knowledge that hygiene had a role in disease prevention thousands of years ago- such facts were merely forgotten during the middle ages. All other so-called 'holy' texts have similar examples. Are they divinely inspired, as well?

You got any facts that they were "common knowledge thousands of years ago"?

You're the one claiming supernatural intervention, the burden of proof is on you to prove such things *weren't* common knowledge. Besides which, if you are accepting the Bible as truth on the basis of its scientific accuracy, there are a number of examples of the Bible being scientifically (and otherwise) inaccurate. For instance, the Bible claims that bats are a type of bird; it claims that God created a solid firmament in which the stars are fixed; a 450 foot-long wooden ship would be not able to withstand almost any storm, much less the worst storm in history; there are records of multiple human languages well before the Tower of Babel was supposed to have been built; the Bible claims that "the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you", but hares do not chew cud. There are many, many other examples.

You're the one claiming supernatural intervention, the burden of proof is on you to prove such things *weren't* common knowledge.

Really? So people just invent things and progress in some ways, and then just forget about it for no reason. It would be the same as people would just kind of forget that they invented cars and start riding horses again. Do you think it's logical?

Besides which, if you are accepting the Bible as truth on the basis of its scientific accuracy, there are a number of examples of the Bible being scientifically (and otherwise) inaccurate.

I thought the topic was "evolution", but ok.

For instance, the Bible claims that bats are a type of bird;

It also says that plants are not alive. Just a simple difference in nomenclature. Bible's classification is different, not wrong.

it claims that God created a solid firmament in which the stars are fixed;

These are probably the verses you are referring to:

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

At no point in these verses does it say that stars are fixed.

And than there is this verse:
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

See it says that fowl (birds) fly in the firmament. If "firmament" was solid I don't think birds could fly in it very well.

 a 450 foot-long wooden ship would be not able to withstand almost any storm, much less the worst storm in history;

Egyptians built wooden boats that were even longer than that (I saw a special on that on Discovery channel earlier in the year). And that ship had a moon well in the middle that relieved all the pressure when going over the waves. It also had around 20 or so anchors to keep the boat balanced during the storm. So it is very possible that such boat existed, and I think I heard something about people discovering its location in Ararat Mountains.

there are records of multiple human languages well before the Tower of Babel was supposed to have been built;

You probably referring to the fact that Tower of Babel story appears late in the Bible. Well Bible is not written in strict chronological form, if it appears late it doesn't mean it happened late. Genesis was written by 10 different authors and compiled in one chapter, and the compiler (I think it was Moses) probably put it there because it fitted better with the story, or for some other reason.

the Bible claims that "the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you", but hares do not chew cud. There are many, many other examples.

I happened to grow up around rabbits. Both my grandparents had rabbits for fir and for meat. And there is something I noticed about them that was kind of disgusting: sometimes they eat their own poop. So rabbits do indeed eat their “cud”, not the way cows do, but a little different a little more disgusting. That’s probably why rabbits made “do not eat” list and cows didn’t

At this point we should probably go back to evolution theory, since it is an official topic of the thred.

-In Genesis it talks about the seed of the woman in terms of reproduction. Up until 18-th century it was believed that only men provide seed (genetic material) and a woman is just a shell for baby development. If bible is a fake how come such information is in there since way before 18-th century?

-In Leviticus among many laws there is one that instructs to wash your hands after you take a dump or handle something dead. In the same 18-century, after the discovery of microorganisms, all hospitals implemented mandatory rule about washing hands before any procedures. Again how would people who "faked" the bible know about microorganisms?

This is some of the most ridiculous stuff I've ever heard.  "The Bible says to wash your hands after taking a dump... how could they have known that it was a good idea way back then?  Unquestionable proof in God and the Bible."  Good thinking dude.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

You're the one claiming supernatural intervention, the burden of proof is on you to prove such things *weren't* common knowledge.

Really? So people just invent things and progress in some ways, and then just forget about it for no reason. It would be the same as people would just kind of forget that they invented cars and start riding horses again. Do you think it's logical?

The collapse of enlightened civilization in Europe following the fall of the Roman Empire is not "no reason". There is well-documented evidence of several Middle Eastern cultures possessing medical knowledge that was forgotten until centuries later. The decline and fall of the Roman Empire, the sacking of the Library of Alexandria, the rise and fall of several lesser empires throughout Europe and the Middle East, the repression of science by the Church, all contributed to a general worldwide decline in scientific knowledge; or did your history class not cover the Dark Ages?

In the lull, perhaps I may bring another question to the creationist table (feel free to finish any debate about defecation that you may still be interested in):

Why did the Intelligent Designer design humans in such a way as to be dependent on so many microorganisms?  Symmetrically, why he he design them to be dependent on us?  This seems to me to be a vulnerability, since anything that is a hazard to the organisms on which we are dependent is now also a hazard to us, even if it wasn't directly hurtful to us before.

Some quick examples: we need certain bacteria in our intestines to help us digest food.  If they die, we get very sick very quickly and die fairly horrible deaths.  We need mitochondria to produce energy for us; they have different DNA from us and reproduce on their own and can be considered separate organisms, and without them none of our metabolic functions could take place.

To me, a more intelligent design would not have involved such a dependency.  Evolution, however, readily offers an explanation for the presence of such relationships.  What do the creationists say?

In the lull, perhaps I may bring another question to the creationist table (feel free to finish any debate about defecation that you may still be interested in):

Why did the Intelligent Designer design humans in such a way as to be dependent on so many microorganisms?  Symmetrically, why he he design them to be dependent on us?  This seems to me to be a vulnerability, since anything that is a hazard to the organisms on which we are dependent is now also a hazard to us, even if it wasn't directly hurtful to us before.

Some quick examples: we need certain bacteria in our intestines to help us digest food.  If they die, we get very sick very quickly and die fairly horrible deaths.  We need mitochondria to produce energy for us; they have different DNA from us and reproduce on their own and can be considered separate organisms, and without them none of our metabolic functions could take place.

To me, a more intelligent design would not have involved such a dependency.  Evolution, however, readily offers an explanation for the presence of such relationships.  What do the creationists say?

Interesting question.
As you know human being depend on lots of things, various forms of bacteria, like you mentioned, also variety of food we need to survive, air to breathe, and we are also very sensitive to temperature. Wouldn't it be cool to live forever and never need food or air or anything else? I think  it would, BUT we were designed to be on specific planet with specific flora and fauna. And if some flora can serve some function inside our bodies why not let it?
In the same way when you build birdhouses for a living in your garage and you need nails, you don't design your own nails for each separate birdhouse, you look around to see if you already have any, and if you do - use them.

googleSearch,

Pretty much you're saying that God said: "Eh... why not?  Go ahead and make 'em dependent on microorganisms."

Also, your birdhouse analogy isn't convincing.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

For instance, the Bible claims that bats are a type of bird;

It also says that plants are not alive. Just a simple difference in nomenclature. Bible's classification is different, not wrong.

Uh, no, that's just plain wrong. Plants are alive and bats are not birds.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

there are records of multiple human languages well before the Tower of Babel was supposed to have been built;

You probably referring to the fact that Tower of Babel story appears late in the Bible. Well Bible is not written in strict chronological form, if it appears late it doesn't mean it happened late. Genesis was written by 10 different authors and compiled in one chapter, and the compiler (I think it was Moses) probably put it there because it fitted better with the story, or for some other reason.

So the Biblical chronology is not strict, but you believe you can use it to say that the Earth is definitely only a few thousand years old?

Uh, no, that's just plain wrong. Plants are alive and bats are not birds.

Keep in mind that the Bible uses words to mean different things than we normally associate those words to mean.  We think of life and death a certain way, but these words are used in the Bible to mean different things.  Of course, any ancient source would attribute different meanings to their words than we, today, would attribute to them.

So, your saying that we should take the bible metephoricly?

(if so, i will twist it to mean what i want it to mean. Including the earth not existing)

As long as you retards can use the "conspiracy" crap about the earth being flat, why can't you believe that someone created skeletons and fossils of different species?  The government would have much more to gain from that then spending trillions of dollars faking that the earth is flat.  And there was once a thread about Darwin raping monkeys, does anyone know what happened to that?

So the Biblical chronology is not strict, but you believe you can use it to say that the Earth is definitely only a few thousand years old?

That's not what I said. I said "Bible is not written in strict chronological form" meaning that events in previous chapter did not necessarily happened before the events in following chapter.

Nobody will give you an exact age of the Earth based on Bible, but it is easy to calculate it approximately, based on Genesis account, which puts it in the range of 6K-10K years old.

googleSearch,

Pretty much you're saying that God said: "Eh... why not?  Go ahead and make 'em dependent on microorganisms."

Yes, something like that. He also made us dependent on natural resources, food, water, air, and many other things that we came to enjoy.

And don't forget that we were made in the image of God, so it is also possible that during creation God was recreating His own body in all the details.

Also, your birdhouse analogy isn't convincing.

K, I'll keep that in mind.

And don't forget that we were made in the image of God, so it is also possible that during creation God was recreating His own body in all the details.

Sure, because God is dependent on microorganisms to exist.  Good point.

Nobody will give you an exact age of the Earth based on Bible, but it is easy to calculate it approximately, based on Genesis account, which puts it in the range of 6K-10K years old.

This seems to be what most young-earth creationists believe.  However, many others in the Christian community believe that these YE Creationists give Christianity a bad image.

im christian and i believe in evolution because its there, and its real

As you know human being depend on lots of things, various forms of bacteria, like you mentioned, also variety of food we need to survive, air to breathe, and we are also very sensitive to temperature. ... And if some flora can serve some function inside our bodies why not let it?

The necessity of eating food, both animal and vegetable, is a mark of mankind's lordship over the plants and animals as guaranteed by God in Genesis.  To eat something is to have total power over that thing.

As for air, there is clearly a link between air and spirit.  "Spiritus" after all is just Latin for "breath".

The point of the above to paragraphs is to show a plausible spiritualist explanation for mankind's relationship to certain parts of nature, which evolution also provides explanations for.  If you're only using food and air to keep score, then evolution and creation are tied.

However, evolution also provides an explanation for why we have bacteria in our intestines.  ID, however, does not.  Moreover, whereas the spiritualist explanations I offered for food and air dependence are somehow positive or beneficial, man's dependence on bacteria is merely a weakness for man.  If we can't get food for a few days we do not die, but if all the bacteria in our stomach dies we probably will not survive.

Maybe what I'm getting at is whereas evolution does not a priori favor humans, creationism does -- God explicitly made us lords over all other creation, so it seems inconsistent that he would, in some sense, put us at the mercy of microbes.  It's perfectly consistent for evolution because in that model, microbes an humans both evolve in response to certain environment pressures.

In the same way when you build birdhouses for a living in your garage and you need nails, you don't design your own nails for each separate birdhouse, you look around to see if you already have any, and if you do - use them.

Ah, but that's different.  In a symbiotic relationship, as with man and the bacteria in his colon, each organisms depend on the other for survival.  The relationship between nails and birdhouses is a one-way dependence (birdhouses need nails, but not vice versa).

Bacteria are in your intestines, because they were able to get in there.  Just like bacteria is in the air, because it was able to get there.  The air didn't have to evolve for bacteria to get into it, just like our intestines didn't have to evolve to do the same thing.

Fossils are as much evidence for evolution as they are for creation.

fossils are evidence. thats all. you need a theory to explain the evidence and predict more evidence.

natural selection predicts that we should find fossils in patterns. we should see that groups diverge over time - several lineages that converge when going back into the past. where rapid environmental change occurs, we should see extinction. where more gradual environmental change occurs, we should see increasing adaptation. where the environment is static, once an organism group is suitably adapted, little or no change will occur. when a group of organisms is introduced to new territory, adaptive radiation occurs.

and this is what we see in the fossil record.

what does creationism predict?




and fossils are old news anyway. genetics is where it all is now. evolutionary theory and fossil evidence shows that birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs. (if you dispute this, i suggest you catch up, its definately not just archeopteryx anymore) therefore there should be genetic links. and there are. birds still have the genes for growing teeth, as shown loads of times in chickens. another successful prediction made by evolution.

If evolution is so great in predicting things of the past and fossils provide a record of events, how come there are no gradual changes in bones found? You want your fossil record to count as evidence; here is what you need to prove: Existence of fossils with gradual changes like one bone is getting longer or shorter by a several millimeters. You should have billions and hundreds of billions skeletons just on a transition between a rat and a cat, AND you have to prove that they all are arranged in strict chronological order AND you have to prove that later fossils are descendants of the ones that came before. Until you prove all these things your fossils will only prove that at some point in the past something died.

It is not just the links you are missing; you are missing the whole chain.

and fossils are old news anyway. genetics is where it all is now. evolutionary theory and fossil evidence shows that birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs. (if you dispute this, i suggest you catch up, its definately not just archeopteryx anymore) therefore there should be genetic links.

In fact I do. Exactly how did it "show" that? By arranging fossils by size?  Well, arranging fossils by size doesn’t prove a thing. Lizards have scales on their skin, birds have feathers, did you see gradual change of scales into feathers on your fossils?

or maybe it "shows" it by the fact that birds are found in the upper layers of strata? Since birds are very light creatures and can fly, I can conclude that they were the last creatures that were wiped out during the great flood. In fact after reading about Noah's flood I can predict that strata will be organized in layers and that birds will be found in top layers of strata. Wow, a successful prediction made by me!

and there are. birds still have the genes for growing teeth, as shown loads of times in chickens. another successful prediction made by evolution.

And that somehow proves that they evolved from lizards? It proves that in the past birds had teeth, it doesn't in any way prove that they chickens were lizards in the past.

If evolution is so great in predicting things of the past and fossils provide a record of events, how come there are no gradual changes in bones found? You want your fossil record to count as evidence; here is what you need to prove: Existence of fossils with gradual changes like one bone is getting longer or shorter by a several millimeters. You should have billions and hundreds of billions skeletons just on a transition between a rat and a cat, AND you have to prove that they all are arranged in strict chronological order AND you have to prove that later fossils are descendants of the ones that came before. Until you prove all these things your fossils will only prove that at some point in the past something died.

Bullshit, no one can prove all that. All that is necessary is for a clear chain of descent to be shown, and it has been. Evolutionary theory predicted there should be a clear chain of descent, and there is; the Bible does not predict this; therefore evolution is supported by the evidence and not the Biblical model.

It is not just the links you are missing; you are missing the whole chain.

Quote

and fossils are old news anyway. genetics is where it all is now. evolutionary theory and fossil evidence shows that birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs. (if you dispute this, i suggest you catch up, its definately not just archeopteryx anymore) therefore there should be genetic links.

In fact I do. Exactly how did it "show" that? By arranging fossils by size?  Well, arranging fossils by size doesn’t prove a thing. Lizards have scales on their skin, birds have feathers, did you see gradual change of scales into feathers on your fossils?

Scales never changed into feathers, scales changed into skin; feathers are an addition. And we do indeed have fossils that demonstrate scaled reptiles developing more and more complex feathers.

or maybe it "shows" it by the fact that birds are found in the upper layers of strata? Since birds are very light creatures and can fly, I can conclude that they were the last creatures that were wiped out during the great flood. In fact after reading about Noah's flood I can predict that strata will be organized in layers and that birds will be found in top layers of strata. Wow, a successful prediction made by me!

Quote

Except that could never happen. Even *if* the flood could have created the geographic strata, it would not have happened instantly. The birds would have died, they would have sunk to the bottom just like everything else, and sat there for years while the fossilization process occurred. The flood model does NOT predict orderly, layered strata- all fossils should be jumbled together at the bottom, unless you believe the bottom layers were formed in the time it took for the birds to fall out of the air.

Quote

Quote

and there are. birds still have the genes for growing teeth, as shown loads of times in chickens. another successful prediction made by evolution.

And that somehow proves that they evolved from lizards? It proves that in the past birds had teeth, it doesn't in any way prove that they chickens were lizards in the past.

If there were only one or a few such examples, you could explain it away like that; but when EVERY species has remnants of DNA from the creatures they are supposed to have evolved from, the Biblical model is flatly contradicted and another specific evolutionary prediction is confirmed.

Bullshit, no one can prove all that. All that is necessary is for a clear chain of descent to be shown, and it has been. Evolutionary theory predicted there should be a clear chain of descent, and there is; the Bible does not predict this; therefore evolution is supported by the evidence and not the Biblical model.

Arranging bones by size only proves that you have a skill to do so. All that nonsense about "clear chain of descent" and "tree of life" based on assumption that those bones you arranges by size actually arranged by time as well, and younger bones are direct descendents of older ones. And like you said yourself no one can prove all that. If you like your assumptions, stick to them, just don't claim that its science.

You are right Bible does not predict this, Bible tells us flat out what happend. Main kinds of animals were carried by Noah into the post-flood world, and they started adapting to the enviroment, that is why you have a bunch of different dogs that look very different from each other, and yet, they are dogs, always have been and always will be.

Scales never changed into feathers, scales changed into skin; feathers are an addition. And we do indeed have fossils that demonstrate scaled reptiles developing more and more complex feathers.

And what are you basing this conclusion? On the fact that one fossil has been found with dark stains around it's front limbs, and you automatically assumed they were wings with feathers? or was it another one found with skin? I don't think skin and feather preserve very well, do you?

Except that could never happen. Even *if* the flood could have created the geographic strata, it would not have happened instantly. The birds would have died, they would have sunk to the bottom just like everything else, and sat there for years while the fossilization process occurred. The flood model does NOT predict orderly, layered strata- all fossils should be jumbled together at the bottom, unless you believe the bottom layers were formed in the time it took for the birds to fall out of the air.

Hydraulic sorting. It's a physical process. Water and gravity sorts thing by weight and density. Since birds are light they will be at top layers, dinos are heavy they are found in bottom layers, sea creatures, since they were already deep in the oceans when flood hit, will be found in even deeper layers.

If there were only one or a few such examples, you could explain it away like that; but when EVERY species has remnants of DNA from the creatures they are supposed to have evolved from, the Biblical model is flatly contradicted and another specific evolutionary prediction is confirmed.

Again, teeth gene in chickens' DNA means that birds used to have teeth, it doesn't mean they evolved from a crocodile.

Biblical model accepts microevolution. It is possible for some genes to be turned off if environment demands them to be off. If birds don't need teeth anymore the gene will be turned off, but it will still be there and that is fine and acceptable. What you need to find to prove common descend is a gene for laying eggs in mammals, that would probably prove common ancestry a little better that teeth.

Arranging bones by size only proves that you have a skill to do so. All that nonsense about "clear chain of descent" and "tree of life" based on assumption that those bones you arranges by size actually arranged by time as well, and younger bones are direct descendents of older ones. And like you said yourself no one can prove all that. If you like your assumptions, stick to them, just don't claim that its science.

Who arranges bones by size? You are attacking a strawman.

You are right Bible does not predict this, Bible tells us flat out what happend. Main kinds of animals were carried by Noah into the post-flood world, and they started adapting to the enviroment, that is why you have a bunch of different dogs that look very different from each other, and yet, they are dogs, always have been and always will be.

Are you aware that many of the Biblical "kinds" have greater genetic diversity than the genetic difference between humans and chimps? Are you aware that creationists claim evolution cannot create novel genetic information, yet the total genetic material of any species contains hundreds or thousands of times as much unique genetic information as could possibly be carried in only two members of that species? If all modern dogs, including domestics, wolves, jackals, etc. are all descended from two individuals, yet evolution cannot create new genetic information, how is it that the amount of unique genetic information in dogs is far greater than the total amount of genetic information than could have been contained in two dogs?

And what are you basing this conclusion? On the fact that one fossil has been found with dark stains around it's front limbs, and you automatically assumed they were wings with feathers? or was it another one found with skin? I don't think skin and feather preserve very well, do you?

There exist a LARGE number of feathered dinosaurs, most notably those found in Liaoning, China. It's not one fossil.

Hydraulic sorting. It's a physical process. Water and gravity sorts thing by weight and density. Since birds are light they will be at top layers, dinos are heavy they are found in bottom layers, sea creatures, since they were already deep in the oceans when flood hit, will be found in even deeper layers.

Trilobites are not heavier than dinosaurs. Australopithecus is not heavier than humans.

Again, teeth gene in chickens' DNA means that birds used to have teeth, it doesn't mean they evolved from a crocodile.

But that's not the only example. It's one thing to say birds had teeth, but its another thing to say that such a large number just happen to contain remnants of DNA of the very animals they are predicted to have evolved from.

Biblical model accepts microevolution. It is possible for some genes to be turned off if environment demands them to be off. If birds don't need teeth anymore the gene will be turned off, but it will still be there and that is fine and acceptable. What you need to find to prove common descend is a gene for laying eggs in mammals, that would probably prove common ancestry a little better that teeth.

However, the evolution of novel genes has been observed, as well as speciation, so macroevolution is confirmed.

Are you aware that many of the Biblical "kinds" have greater genetic diversity than the genetic difference between humans and chimps? Are you aware that creationists claim evolution cannot create novel genetic information, yet the total genetic material of any species contains hundreds or thousands of times as much unique genetic information as could possibly be carried in only two members of that species? If all modern dogs, including domestics, wolves, jackals, etc. are all descended from two individuals, yet evolution cannot create new genetic information, how is it that the amount of unique genetic information in dogs is far greater than the total amount of genetic information than could have been contained in two dogs?

Dude! You believe that all life on Earth evolved from a rock that got sprinkled with some rain! How much of a genetic information does a bloody rock have?!

However, the evolution of novel genes has been observed, as well as speciation, so macroevolution is confirmed.

Right, I have 4 Russian families living on my street, all drive BMW 5-series, and therefore all Russians drive BMW 5-series. Stupid statement, right? Well, if look just on my street - it is actually true, but can I apply same conclusion to all the streets in US? I hope not.
Same as you should not say that variation within a kind confirms macroevolution, because it does not.

Dude! You believe that all life on Earth evolved from a rock that got sprinkled with some rain! How much of a genetic information does a bloody rock have?!

Dude! That is not at all what I believe.

Quote

However, the evolution of novel genes has been observed, as well as speciation, so macroevolution is confirmed.

Right, I have 4 Russian families living on my street, all drive BMW 5-series, and therefore all Russians drive BMW 5-series. Stupid statement, right? Well, if look just on my street - it is actually true, but can I apply same conclusion to all the streets in US? I hope not.
Same as you should not say that variation within a kind confirms macroevolution, because it does not.

[/quote]

I meant macroevolution as speciation, not common descent. THERE. ARE. NO. KINDS. They do not exist. They are fiction. No one has ever demonstrated what a "kind" is or what blocks evolution from occuring at that level. Lots of small changes =  big change, and no one has ever shown what prevents lots of small change from accumulating into big enough change to break the "kinds" barrier, nor for that matter has anyone shown where the "kinds" barrier is.

Now, please address the points in my last post. If evolution cannot create information, how is that any given species expresses far more genetic variation than could possibly have been contained in only two representatives? If the geographic strata are caused by "hydraulic sorting" how is it that many light animals, including a number of flying creatures, are closer to the bottom, and many heavy animals are on top? If evolution can work within "kinds" but not beyond them, and humans and apes are totally separate "kinds", how is it that the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees is smaller than the genetic difference between a number of animals that are supposedly in the same "kind"?