Evidence for God from Science

any connections between birds and dinosaurs will always be tenuous and the actual details may be forever out of our reach.

But we know it happened? the details aren't there because it never happened.

Jbuza wrote:

any connections between birds and dinosaurs will always be tenuous and the actual details may be forever out of our reach.

But we know it happened? the details aren't there because it never happened.

I suggest you go out and study the evidence and observations we have so far. There are certainly tantalizing peices opf evidence.

What I meant is exactly what I said, which is the exact details of when and where may never be known. If you have an alternative explanation for the various findings I am open to suggestions.

But please do the required research first before stating that there are no details at all, which is not the case.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

any connections between birds and dinosaurs will always be tenuous and the actual details may be forever out of our reach.

But we know it happened? the details aren't there because it never happened.

I suggest you go out and study the evidence and observations we have so far. There are certainly tantalizing peices opf evidence.

What I meant is exactly what I said, which is the exact details of when and where may never be known. If you have an alternative explanation for the various findings I am open to suggestions.

But please do the required research first before stating that there are no details at all, which is not the case.

What tantalizing pieces of evidence?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I suggest you go out and study the evidence and observations we have so far. There are certainly tantalizing peices of evidence.

What tantalizing pieces of evidence?

Archaeopteryx
Feathered Dromaeosaur
Long tailed bird

http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs/featdino.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/dromey.htm
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/s ... ridae.html

... And these could not by ANY means be an entirely different species? Coming from the belief in God, the God of the Bible, I do believe everything is interconnected and I do believe apes, chimps, birds, fish, dinosaurs, etc... had/have a basic design to them as a blue print of everything being interconnected instead of seeing huge ugly "monster" beasts that look like they came from a different planet. But I don't believe by any means that one another evolved into a new creature. You have shown nothing, sorry. Until that day (if it ever gets there, clock is still ticking) that evolution is PROVED as a 100% UNDENIABLY FACT, then I won't believe it. Sorry .

Thinker wrote:... And these could not by ANY means be an entirely different species? Coming from the belief in God, the God of the Bible, I do believe everything is interconnected and I do believe apes, chimps, birds, fish, dinosaurs, etc... had/have a basic design to them as a blue print of everything being interconnected instead of seeing huge ugly "monster" beasts that look like they came from a different planet. But I don't believe by any means that one another evolved into a new creature. You have shown nothing, sorry. Until that day (if it ever gets there, clock is still ticking) that evolution is PROVED as a 100% UNDENIABLY FACT, then I won't believe it. Sorry .

Brian I did say

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:What I meant is exactly what I said, which is the exact details of when and where may never be known. If you have an alternative explanation for the various findings I am open to suggestions.

These are findings, the interpretations are just that. From either perspective creationism or evolution these are separate species.
The only difference being that from the evolutionary perspective these are possibly distant ancestors to modern birds.

One thing to note is that these forms existed before the appearance of more modern birds in the fossil record.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

any connections between birds and dinosaurs will always be tenuous and the actual details may be forever out of our reach.

But we know it happened? the details aren't there because it never happened.

I suggest you go out and study the evidence and observations we have so far. There are certainly tantalizing peices opf evidence.

What I meant is exactly what I said, which is the exact details of when and where may never be known. If you have an alternative explanation for the various findings I am open to suggestions.

But please do the required research first before stating that there are no details at all, which is not the case.

Sorry for my inability to answer everything that has been proposed to prop up evolution, educated men have been divising an explanation wihtout God for decades, but if you can bring forth more specific proofs that have independent evidence, than do so already. I am more than happy to provide a more true explnation based upon my scientific philosophy, but you have provided only empty claims to argue against.

Even Darwin realized how empty evolution was of any supporting evidence.

I cannot argue against conjecture and chatter, but if you have some concrete hypothesis and how it was tested to show that life evolved, and I would be happy to respond to that with a more reasonable explanation for you. All one has to do is follow creation theory to its logical and reasonble conlcusion and every observation will be explained.

Feathered Dromaeosaur-what feathers?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I suggest you go out and study the evidence and observations we have so far. There are certainly tantalizing peices of evidence.

What tantalizing pieces of evidence?

In response to your pictoral evidence, are you saying that given the wonderous variety of life both extinct and living that God created all manner of creatures that show intelligent design? Or are you professing Faith in the creator, that Word that became Jesus?

I fail to understand how this is evidence of anything other than massive sedimentation captured a living organism and preserved it, and that it has been dug up, and that chatter and speculzation has been told about the bones?

Seems like it belongs with a witch docter perhaps he could scatter them and get a vision of darwinian evolution for some devil.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Feathered Dromaeosaur-what feathers?

Here is a close up of the head.

Its quite possible that many dinosaurs had such covering. Only the conditions required to preserve such fine detail is rare, making it impossible to determine which species did, and which did not.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Thinker wrote:... And these could not by ANY means be an entirely different species? Coming from the belief in God, the God of the Bible, I do believe everything is interconnected and I do believe apes, chimps, birds, fish, dinosaurs, etc... had/have a basic design to them as a blue print of everything being interconnected instead of seeing huge ugly "monster" beasts that look like they came from a different planet. But I don't believe by any means that one another evolved into a new creature. You have shown nothing, sorry. Until that day (if it ever gets there, clock is still ticking) that evolution is PROVED as a 100% UNDENIABLY FACT, then I won't believe it. Sorry .

Brian I did say

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:What I meant is exactly what I said, which is the exact details of when and where may never be known. If you have an alternative explanation for the various findings I am open to suggestions.

These are findings, the interpretations are just that. From either perspective creationism or evolution these are separate species.
The only difference being that from the evolutionary perspective these are possibly distant ancestors to modern birds.

One thing to note is that these forms existed before the appearance of more modern birds in the fossil record.

So the one theory explains the acutal evidence and the other must relie on some non-existent evidence? Not disprovable. Not Science.

Game. Set. Match.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Feathered Dromaeosaur-what feathers?

Here is a close up of the head.

Its quite possible that many dinosaurs had such covering. Only the conditions required to preserve such fine detail is rare, making it impossible to determine which species did, and which did not.

As I said before, what feathers? I see no imprint that looks like a feather.

As it is said, appearance can be deceiving. You make of it what you think it is. In this case, it looks like feathers, but doesn't.

Thinker wrote:As it is said, appearance can be deceiving. You make of it what you think it is. In this case, it looks like feathers, but doesn't.

So what do you think it is? Like I said I am open to suggestions.

So, the covering is feathers until a better explanation is found? What if we just show that it's not feathers without an alterative? So what, doesn't hinder our argument