Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[dad1]

Dad, until you learn what is and what is not evidence you will not get any.

Why are you spamming your own thread?

No one will ask you about the bible, or what evidence is...just to produce some the best you know how here! And please do not offer some frankenweenie video you can't discuss.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No one will ask you about the bible, or what evidence is...just to produce some the best you know how here! And please do not offer some frankenweenie video you can't discuss.

Correction, you won't ask, but that is because you know that you are wrong and you appear to be very afraid.

 

[dad1]

Correction, you won't ask, but that is because you know that you are wrong and you appear to be very afraid.

As fun as it might be to engage in wasted babble with you, how about you tell us what time is like in the far universe? How about why there was, as you claim, no flood? How about explaining how genetics from an animal today tells us ancient populations etc of that animal?

You avoid all questions and substance.

Here is another one for you, can you tell us why the feather in the article has to be from a dino?

"
Amber containing tick grasping a dinosaur feather is first direct fossil evidence of ticks parasitizing dinosaurs"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171213104735.htm


Lurkers, in case he pulls the usual and avoids the questions, here is the answer from the article itself.

""So although we can't be sure what kind of dinosaur the tick was feeding on, the mid-Cretaceous age of the Burmese amber confirms that the feather certainly did not belong to a modern bird, as these appeared much later in theropod evolution according to current fossil and molecular evidence."


In other words it can't be a bird feather because...we believe there were no birds then'!!!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

As fun as it might be to engage in wasted babble with you, how about you tell us what time is like in the far universe? How about why there was, as you claim, no flood? How about explaining how genetics from an animal today tells us ancient populations etc of that animal?

dad, you are projecting again. You are the only one that has babbled here. And you keep forgetting. You do not understand the nature of evidence and I won't give you any until you learn.

You avoid all questions and substance.

Projecting again. I have answered your questions. The explanation was beyond you. Once again you need to learn what is and what is not evidence. Your avoiding the topic tell us that you are afraid of it.

Here is another one for you, can you tell us why the feather in the article has to be from a dino?
"
Amber containing tick grasping a dinosaur feather is first direct fossil evidence of ticks parasitizing dinosaurs"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171213104735.htm

I don't know for sure how they know that is a dinosaur feather. But you do realize that quite a few dinosaurs are known to be feathered now, don't you? And of course even modern day birds are still dinosaurs, just as you are still an ape.

Lurkers, in case he pulls the usual and avoids the questions, here is the answer from the article itself.

But I did not avoid answering the question. And the lurkers can see that you run away from a fairly easy task. Why do you keep appealing to lurkers when you continually demonstrate your fear?

""So although we can't be sure what kind of dinosaur the tick was feeding on, the mid-Cretaceous age of the Burmese amber confirms that the feather certainly did not belong to a modern bird, as these appeared much later in theropod evolution according to current fossil and molecular evidence."


In other words it can't be a bird feather because...we believe there were no birds then'!!!!

Nope, birds existed at that time. That was not the reason that they concluded that it came from a dinosaur. Again, this is not my area of expertise, but that error of yours was a lulu. The first birds appeared 50 million years before then so that is not the reason.

 

[dad1]

Projecting again. I have answered your questions.

Those of us who can read disagree.

I don't know for sure how they know that is a dinosaur feather.

Faith. There is no birds believed to have lived then so it golly gee could not be a bird feather. I notice the big reason people offered for why we know the OP footprint was not human was because..'it couldn't be no humans in our belief system existed yet!

But you do realize that quite a few dinosaurs are known to be feathered now, don't you? And of course even modern day birds are still dinosaurs, just as you are still an ape.

Fine with me. I see no reason many dinos may not have evolved from birds! The rpid evolution of the former nature could have allowed that. But if that were the case they would not be created kinds any longer, so probably would not be called to the ark! The great dino extinction!?

In any case there were still birds around all the while, oly some would have evolved to dinos. So you can't claim a feather golly gee HAS to be from a dino, because no birds existed!

Nope, birds existed at that time. That was not the reason that they concluded that it came from a dinosaur.

You are welcome to disagree with the science article. However it did say this

""So although we can't be sure what kind of dinosaur the tick was feeding on, the mid-Cretaceous age of the Burmese amber confirms that the feather certainly did not belong to a modern bird, as these appeared much later in theropod evolution according to current fossil and molecular evidence."

Hoo ha.

Again, this is not my area of expertise, but that error of yours was a lulu. The first birds appeared 50 million years before then so that is not the reason.

The first birds in the belief system of science were not modern birds...or in plain english...real birds.

I am telling you real birdies existed then. Eagles. Crows...etc. They existed long before this fossil in amber as well.

Just because most creatures on earth could not leave fossilized remains does not mean they were not here. To claim that would be to blindly claim a same state past nature.

 

[Altfish]

Those of us who can read disagree.

NO, we don't.

 

[dad1]

NO, we don't.

NO, we don't.

Then post the link to a post from the poster that shows evidence and debates and discusses points!!

Otherwise, well...happy hand waving.

 

[Altfish]

Then post the link to a post from the poster that shows evidence and debates and discusses points!!

Otherwise, well...happy hand waving.

I love it when creationists talk about evidence.

OK You want links...

Firstly I recommend Potholer54's series "Our Origins Made Easy"
Our Origins Made Easy - YouTube

or The Thinking Atheists series..

Come back for more once you've dismissed these.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As fun as it might be to engage in wasted babble with you, how about you tell us what time is like in the far universe? How about why there was, as you claim, no flood? How about explaining how genetics from an animal today tells us ancient populations etc of that animal?

You avoid all questions and substance.

Here is another one for you, can you tell us why the feather in the article has to be from a dino?

"
Amber containing tick grasping a dinosaur feather is first direct fossil evidence of ticks parasitizing dinosaurs"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171213104735.htm


Lurkers, in case he pulls the usual and avoids the questions, here is the answer from the article itself.

""So although we can't be sure what kind of dinosaur the tick was feeding on, the mid-Cretaceous age of the Burmese amber confirms that the feather certainly did not belong to a modern bird, as these appeared much later in theropod evolution according to current fossil and molecular evidence."


In other words it can't be a bird feather because...we believe there were no birds then'!!!!

Sometimes it helps to seek out the original material.

"The relatively loosely vaned pennaceous feather that the hard tick described herein is grasping (Fig. 1; Supplementary Fig. 1) shows barbule pennula with hooklets in some areas. This would assign the feather to stage IV in Prum’s evolutionary-developmental model of the feather, but the clear length asymmetry between the barbs on either side of the rachis classifies it within stage V27. Even though stage IV and V feathers have for the most part been inferred in the fossil record, namely in compression fossils through the presence of well-developed closed vanes, some directly visible instances of these stages in Cretaceous amber feathers were previously reported (although not figured or poorly so) bearing barbules with hooklets like the ones presented here28, 29. These structures have not been described from other Cretaceous feathers found in Burmese30, 31, Canadian32, or Spanish ambers. Furthermore, stage IV feathers have been associated with taxa adapted for gliding or powered flight due to the ability of the barbules to interlock and allow for closed feather vanes27, but as the latter are also found in cursorial taxa they do not directly imply gliding or flying ability33. In any case, a feather belonging to the stage V indicates that the dinosaur host of the hard tick described herein falls within the clade Pennaraptora according to current evidence from the fossil record of feathered dinosaurs (see Supplementary Note 4). Crown-group birds are excluded as possible hosts because their inferred age is significantly younger than Burmese amber, i.e., about 73 Ma based on targeted next-generation DNA sequencing34. Even if the palpal claws of Cornupalpatum were interpreted as a possible adaptation to parasitism of an extinct line of reptilian hosts12, at least the nymphs ectoparasitised feathered dinosaurs based on the direct evidence provided herein, although this hard tick species could have also parasitised other hosts."

parasitised feathered dinosaurs as revealed by Cretaceous amber assemblages

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those of us who can read disagree.

dad, you are not a "we".

Faith. There is no birds believed to have lived then so it golly gee could not be a bird feather. I notice the big reason people offered for why we know the OP footprint was not human was because..'it couldn't be no humans in our belief system existed yet!

No, faith is your flaw, not mine. And birds first appeared about 150 million years ago. This fossil is a bit less than 100 million years old. I see that someone else did your homework for you. I am not going to do it, at least not until you learn what is and what is not evidence. Check out SkepticalThinker's post.

Fine with me. I see no reason many dinos may not have evolved from birds! The rpid evolution of the former nature could have allowed that. But if that were the case they would not be created kinds any longer, so probably would not be called to the ark! The great dino extinction!?

Nope, you got that backwards. Dinosaurs predate birds. And it is amazing. You are fine with the massive evolution it would take to go from dinosaur to bird, yet you deny the fact that you are not an ape. That is amazing! You just made the equivalent statement that it is possible to travel from one end of your state to another, but a trip to the local mall is impossible.

What kind of logic is that?

In any case there were still birds around all the while, oly some would have evolved to dinos. So you can't claim a feather golly gee HAS to be from a dino, because no birds existed!

if that was the case we could find their fossils in all strata. We do not observe that. Your inability to reason is getting worse dad.

You are welcome to disagree with the science article. However it did say this

""So although we can't be sure what kind of dinosaur the tick was feeding on, the mid-Cretaceous age of the Burmese amber confirms that the feather certainly did not belong to a modern bird, as these appeared much later in theropod evolution according to current fossil and molecular evidence."

Hoo ha.

Did you not note the qualifier there? It is right in your quote. It says "modern birds" There were birds before modern birds just as there were hominids before present day man. Seriously you do not even have the education level of a middle school child. dad, you have been debating for years and have not learned anything.

This is very basic and may help:

Evolution of birds - Wikipedia

The first birds in the belief system of science were not modern birds...or in plain english...real birds.

You need to define your terms if you want to use them. And you need to justify your use of the definition. You are not a source.

I am telling you real birdies existed then. Eagles. Crows...etc. They existed long before this fossil in amber as well.

Just because most creatures on earth could not leave fossilized remains does not mean they were not here. To claim that would be to blindly claim a same state past nature.

Nope, sorry, they did not. Again, if that were the case you could find fossils of them. And we are back to your fictitious past state. If you want to claim that it exists the burden of proof is upon you.

Perhaps if you learned what evidence is you could finally win an argument instead of only displaying massive ignorance for the entire world to see.

 

[dad1]

I love it when creationists talk about evidence.

OK You want links...

No. I want you to make a point in your own words and provide a link should we need to check what it says, where it was made..etc.

It is one thing to say something like 'I don't think the ark could float, because of these reasons...blah blah'

It is another thing to spam some link with multiple points raised.

 

[dad1]

Sometimes it helps to seek out the original material.

"The relatively loosely vaned pennaceous feather that the hard tick described herein is grasping (Fig. 1; Supplementary Fig. 1) shows barbule pennula with hooklets in some areas. This would assign the feather to stage IV in Prum’s evolutionary-developmental model of the feather, but the clear length asymmetry between the barbs on either side of the rachis classifies it within stage V27. Even though stage IV and V feathers have for the most part been inferred in the fossil record, namely in compression fossils through the presence of well-developed closed vanes, some directly visible instances of these stages in Cretaceous amber feathers were previously reported (although not figured or poorly so) bearing barbules with hooklets like the ones presented here28, 29. These structures have not been described from other Cretaceous feathers found in Burmese30, 31, Canadian32, or Spanish ambers. Furthermore, stage IV feathers have been associated with taxa adapted for gliding or powered flight due to the ability of the barbules to interlock and allow for closed feather vanes27, but as the latter are also found in cursorial taxa they do not directly imply gliding or flying ability33. In any case, a feather belonging to the stage V indicates that the dinosaur host of the hard tick described herein falls within the clade Pennaraptora according to current evidence from the fossil record of feathered dinosaurs (see Supplementary Note 4). Crown-group birds are excluded as possible hosts because their inferred age is significantly younger than Burmese amber, i.e., about 73 Ma based on targeted next-generation DNA sequencing34. Even if the palpal claws of Cornupalpatum were interpreted as a possible adaptation to parasitism of an extinct line of reptilian hosts12, at least the nymphs ectoparasitised feathered dinosaurs based on the direct evidence provided herein, although this hard tick species could have also parasitised other hosts."

parasitised feathered dinosaurs as revealed by Cretaceous amber assemblages

From your link.." Crown-group birds are excluded as possible hosts because their inferred age is significantly younger than Burmese amber, i.e., about 73 Ma based on targeted next-generation DNA sequencing"

In other words, 'we do not believe birds existed so birds are excluded from what we believe the feather was from.
Now as far as the 'barbule pennula' goes, we do not really know about all birds that lived at that time, so we can't say no bird had that sort of feather.

 

[SkepticThinker]

From your link.." Crown-group birds are excluded as possible hosts because their inferred age is significantly younger than Burmese amber, i.e., about 73 Ma based on targeted next-generation DNA sequencing"

In other words, 'we do not believe birds existed so birds are excluded from what we believe the feather was from.
Now as far as the 'barbule pennula' goes, we do not really know about all birds that lived at that time, so we can't say no bird had that sort of feather.

Your "in other words" is not accurate. Read it again, maybe the whole thing this time, plus the references, supplements and footnotes.

 

[dad1]

dad, you are not a "we".

Hey, you are not an 'it'.

And birds first appeared about 150 million years ago.

That is a claim. Show the basis for that claim.

This fossil is a bit less than 100 million years old.

I have to agree with that! Birds were here from week one of creation. So what you really mean is that 'birds start to appear in the record in the imaginary time of 150 million years ago'

Making such a claim tells us that you are steeped in the same state past religion.

Dinosaurs predate birds.

No. Not according to Scripture. What you mean is that ' the dinos could leave remains and according to present nature laws, if other creatures were alive then, they also would have left fossilized remains' Therefore, based on your same nature in the past belief, the fossil record represents life on earth in it's entirety. Sorry, the belief doesn't fly until and unless you show there was a same state past.

And it is amazing. You are fine with the massive evolution it would take to go from dinosaur to bird

Or visa verso! I suspect that creatures could evolve and adapt as needed real fast. Possibly in that former nature even while alive! No long ages needed at all.

, yet you deny the fact that you are not an ape.

No. I do not deny I am not an ape!

if that was the case we could find their fossils in all strata.

In the former nature man could not apparently leave remains. Probably most animals or birds either. Only under a same nature in the past would we expect fossils in all strata. The evidence does not match your beliefs!

Did you not note the qualifier there? It is right in your quote. It says "modern birds" There were birds before modern birds just as there were hominids before present day man.

Hey, that is only inside your religion and mistaken method of looking at the past. There were modern birds from the garden of Eden.

Be amazed.

 

[dad1]

Your "in other words" in not accurate. Read it again, maybe the whole thing this time.

It is accurate, they exclude birds because they state in the article that birds did not yet exist.

 

[Altfish]

No. I want you to make a point in your own words and provide a link should we need to check what it says, where it was made..etc.

It is one thing to say something like 'I don't think the ark could float, because of these reasons...blah blah'

It is another thing to spam some link with multiple points raised.

Fingers in ears, it was a series of videos, is that too much for a creationist mind?
If that is spamming, then I'm guilty, but to me and many others here it is part of the evidence; as expected you just ignored it.
Hand over eyes, fingers in ears - typical

 

[dad1]

Fingers in ears, it was a series of videos, is that too much for a creationist mind?
If that is spamming, then I'm guilty, but to me and many others here it is part of the evidence; as expected you just ignored it.
Hand over eyes, fingers in ears - typical

Make an actual point. I do not look at videos or encyclopedias to try and sift out some imagined point for you. You need to say what you think matters or is a valid argument, and discuss that. Any book, article or movies used as support is not to be offered as some reading assignment.

Do you have a problem with being able to pick a point or two from a link you spam? You see many videos and articles are so wrong about almost everything in them, that it would take hours to explain why. On the other hand when we look at just one or two specific clams or points that may be in a video or article, that is more bite sized to discuss.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey, you are not an 'it'.

You are spamming your thread again.

That is a claim. Show the basis for that claim.

No problem. You no the requirements. As soon as you learn what is and what is not evidence I will gladly give you some.

I have to agree with that! Birds were here from week one of creation. So what you really mean is that 'birds start to appear in the record in the imaginary time of 150 million years ago'

Nope, your silly myth was refuted over a hundred years ago.

When you are ready to learn I am ready to help you.

Making such a claim tells us that you are steeped in the same state past religion.

Nope, Religion is your flaw not mine.

No. Not according to Scripture. What you mean is that ' the dinos could leave remains and according to present nature laws, if other creatures were alive then, they also would have left fossilized remains' Therefore, based on your same nature in the past belief, the fossil record represents life on earth in it's entirety. Sorry, the belief doesn't fly until and unless you show there was a same state past.

Who care? What does it matter what a book of myths says? We know that your Bible is of no use when it comes to a discussion. When you are ready to learn people here will help you.

Or visa verso! I suspect that creatures could evolve and adapt as needed real fast. Possibly in that former nature even while alive! No long ages needed at all.

Nope, we know how fast evolution can occur. Your hyper evolution needs massive evidence to support your claims.

No. I do not deny I am not an ape!

Of course you are an ape. We can all see that. Are you trying to claim that you are a dolphin? A raccoon? Perhaps you think that you are an educated bear. If you claim that you are not an ape then you are claiming that you are not a human being.

In the former nature man could not apparently leave remains. Probably most animals or birds either. Only under a same nature in the past would we expect fossils in all strata. The evidence does not match your beliefs!

Shooting yourself in the foot again. Your former state is only a figment of your imagination until you find evidence for it. Too bad that you have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence.

Hey, that is only inside your religion and mistaken method of looking at the past. There were modern birds from the garden of Eden.

Be amazed.

Wrong again dad. You need to quit making personal attacks. You are the one that is inflicted by a false religion.

And I am amazed. I don't understand how such a staunch defender of the faith can be such a coward. Why are you scared to death of the mere concept of evidence?

 

[Altfish]

Make an actual point. I do not look at videos or encyclopedias to try and sift out some imagined point for you. You need to say what you think matters or is a valid argument, and discuss that. Any book, article or movies used as support is not to be offered as some reading assignment.

Do you have a problem with being able to pick a point or two from a link you spam? You see many videos and articles are so wrong about almost everything in them, that it would take hours to explain why. On the other hand when we look at just one or two specific clams or points that may be in a video or article, that is more bite sized to discuss.

You are a hopeless case Dad1; evidence is Fake News to you, you are just like Trump and his lackeys. If it doesn't meet your agenda it is Spam.
Good luck believe what you like, just please don't indoctrinate any children with your nonsense

 

[dad1]

... myth was refuted over a hundred years ago.

You have not said how. I don't blame you, it would be destroyed in a comical way.

Religion is your flaw not mine.

You post on religious forums claiming religion is a flaw?

I do not like a con job, where beliefs used by science (we could refer to as religion) are sold as something else. If they admitted they had only religion, fine. It is not the religion or beliefs are wrong in every case, what is wrong is offering them as so called science.

We know that your Bible is of no use when it comes to a discussion.

No? So where did you hear about the flood, the pub?

Nope, we know how fast evolution can occur.

Of course we do. Now work on learning how it was in the far past.

Of course you are an ape.

No. I renounce apehood! Science puts man into a category with beasts, that does not mean we are beasts. I reject that categorization. It is a belief based insult to the dignity and intelligence of man and the word of God.

Remember, claiming there was a same nature in the past is only a figment of your imagination until you find evidence for it.