Science vs. Creationism

[MVP]

Also do the "dinosaur" fossils with wings have beaks?

Yes, see some Pterosaurs.

Is there "dinosaur" fossils with wings but no beak?

yes

Is there "dinosaur" fossils with beaks but no wings?

Yes, Ornithischia was group of beaked herbivorous dinosaurs.

Can you know whether a "dinosaur" fossil had feathers or scales or is it just a speculation since you only have the bones?

there is numerous fossils with feather imprints, so no it is not speculation it is fact. The fossil feathers of one specimen, Shuvuuia deserti, have tested positive for beta-keratin, the main protein in bird feathers, in immunological tests.

List of dinosaur fossils found with feathers.

1.Avimimus portentosus (inferred 1987: quill knobs)
2.Pelecanimimus polydon? (1994)
3.Sinosauropteryx prima (1996)
4.Protarchaeopteryx robusta (1997)
5.GMV 2124 (1997)
6.Caudipteryx zoui (1998)
7.Shuvuuia deserti (1999)
8.Sinornithosaurus millenii (1999)
9.Beipiaosaurus inexpectus (1999)
10.Caudipteryx dongi (2000)
11.Caudipteryx sp. (2000)[
12.Microraptor zhaoianus (2000)
13.Nomingia gobiensis (inferred 2000: pygostyle)
14.Psittacosaurus sp.? (2002)
15.Scansoriopteryx heilmanni (2002)
16.Yixianosaurus longimanus (2003)
17.Dilong paradoxus (2004)
18.Jinfengopteryx elegans (2005)
19.Juravenator starki (2006)
20.Sinocalliopteryx gigas (2007)
21.Velociraptor mongoliensis (inferred 2007: quill knobs)
22.Epidexipteryx *** (2008)
23.Similicaudipteryx yixianensis (inferred 2008: pygostyle; confirmed 2010)
24.Zhongornis haoae (2008)
25.Tianyulong confuciusi? (2009)
26.Concavenator corcovatus? (inferred 2010: quill knobs?)
27.Yutyrannus huali (2012)
28.Microraptor hanqingi (2012)
29.Sciurumimus albersdoerferi (2012)
30.Ornithomimus edmontonicus (2012)
31.Ningyuansaurus wangi (2012)
32.Eosinopteryx brevipenna (2013)
33.Citipati osmolskae (inferred 2013: pygostyle)
34.Conchoraptor gracilis (inferred 2013: pygostyle)
35.Jianchangosaurus yixianensis (2013)

 

[♪alt13]

@ pearl/carolina

You can keep your god and and still think evolution happened. There are many folks that think god guided evolution and others that think that god turned the universe on, gave it some rules and let it run. While I don't personally agree with either of these and I would try to make the argument that they were false I would not think that someone that held these beliefs was being purposefully ignorant. Your position on evolution is purposefully ignorant.

 

[MVP]

@ pearl/carolina

You can keep your god and and still think evolution happened. .

Pope John Paul II accepted evolution and yet had no problems leading dominant religion in the world.

 

[VINYLONE]

Your position on evolution is purposefully ignorant.

I don't know about Pearl but CJ is not being purposefully ignorant. Dude truly believes what he believes.

 

[MVP]

CJ is not being purposefully ignorant. Dude truly believes what he believes.

Scary if true.

 

[carolinajazz]

So let's stop looking! We haven't found a link in the couple hundred years we've been looking, obviously the evidence doesn't even exist.

...You can look until the "cows come home" your not going to find anything that even remotely supports the theory of evolution! All the "known" evidence points to a designer of unlimited power and wisdom, coupled with love and justice!

We surely must have uncovered everything there is to find, I mean the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old (or 6,000? lol).

The Bible does NOT teach that the earth is 6,000 years old! Many people are unaware of the fact that Christendom’s leaders, including so-called creationists and fundamentalists, have spun the Bible account of creation into numerous tales that deviate from what the Bible really says. These interpretations fly in the face of scientific fact. Even though those tales are not found in the Bible, they have caused some people to dismiss the Bible account as mythical allegory.

The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Bible scholars agree that this verse describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse*3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening statement, the universe, including our planet Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.
Geologists estimate that the earth is approximately 4*billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15*billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Science does not disprove the Biblical text.


That is so much more fun than exploring the planet and universe that we live in.

It's absolutely a lot of fun and extremely educational to examine and study the various creatures that presently populate the earth! The amazing complexities and detailed handiwork is endless and such a study points to a designer that is awe inspiring!

From time to time, you might want to take a moment to reflect on the marvelous complexities found in nature—from a single blade of grass to the countless heavenly bodies. By examining creation you can perceive the Creator!

 

[VINYLONE]

Many people are unaware of the fact that Christendom’s leaders, including so-called creationists and fundamentalists, have spun the Bible account of creation into numerous tales that deviate from what the Bible really says.

Do you understand the irony here?

 

[Zulu]

Thanks. You seem like a nice guy except the stork jab.

Yes I do have serious doubts about a lot of the speculations Darwinists come up with regards to fossils.

I tried accessing the "dinosaurs take to the air" one but I was only able to read the small blurb, without paid access. I assume you have read the articles you are suggesting.

I have a question regarding your meaning of "transitional species."

So you have fossilized "dinosaurs" without wings and "dinosaurs" with 2 wings, and some with 4 wings.



Is there only one mutation from "no wings" to "wings?"

Could be one or more than one... We know that wings have evolved many times...
Pterodactyls evolved wings and insects evolved wings. Even just looking at mammals you have Bats, flying squirrels, sugar gliders all evolved some type of wing independently... So having wings evolved multiple times in dinosaurs is not out of the question

Also do the "dinosaur" fossils with wings have beaks?

Pegomastax africanus has feathers a Beak and teeth...


Is the mutation from snout to beak one mutation?
hard to tell could be multiple or just one

Is the mutation from snout to beak always paired with the mutation from "no wings" to "wings?"
no... archaeopteryx didn't have a beak, but one of its future decedents could've evolved a beak!!

Is there "dinosaur" fossils with wings but no beak?
yes.... archaeopteryx
Is there "dinosaur" fossils with beaks but no wings?
yes.... Triceratops
Can you know whether a "dinosaur" fossil had feathers or scales or is it just a speculation since you only have the bones?

there are both fossilized imprints of feathers on some dinosaurs as well as fossilized imprints of scales on other Dinosaurs!!

!!!

 

[carolinajazz]

Pope John Paul II accepted evolution and yet had no problems leading dominant religion in the world.

The Catholic Church gives more weight to the word of modern evolutionists than to that of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, who confirmed the Genesis account of creation as accurate by saying: “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” (Matthew 19:4) Whose opinion do you consider to be deserving of more weight?

 

[Zulu]

From time to time, you might want to take a moment to reflect on the marvelous complexities found in nature—from a single blade of grass to the countless heavenly bodies. By examining creation you can perceive the Creator!

Or by studying the evidence you can create a theory!!!!!

 

[Zulu]

The Catholic Church gives more weight to the word of modern evolutionists than to that of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, who confirmed the Genesis account of creation as accurate by saying: “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” (Matthew 19:4) Whose opinion do you consider to be deserving of more weight?

Jesus also Cursed a Fig tree for not meeting it's created purpose(Mark 11: 12-25).... Best be watching your back!!!

 

[carolinajazz]

Do you understand the irony here?

Verbal, dramatic, and situational irony are often used for emphasis in the assertion of a truth. The ironic form of simile, used in sarcasm, and some forms of litotes can emphasize one's meaning by the deliberate use of language which states the opposite of the truth, denies the contrary of the truth, or drastically and obviously understates a factual connection!

...so the only "irony" here is that you and your fellow evolutionists deny the facts and truth of provable science and biology and then use "language" that makes you seem to be the intellectual ones and those of us who believe in an Almighty Creator the "stupid" and "uneducated" ones!