--
See attached image, devonian_fossil_001.jpg.
Typical Devonian Period Environment, 480-360 Million Years Ago
Source: Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999 ISBN#1563318296
I thought science taught that men have superior brains, and can do spatial tasks better, and "visualize" in 3 Dimension, or as the evil Alfred Rosenberg who was blaspheming God and Jesus Christ to high heaven once said, that men are born inherently with the inborn skill for "conceptualization" while women are ... inferior... lacking in intellect... weaker minds. I suppose if you trap any human in a cage, refuse them an education, consign them to servitude... forbid them to develop their potential, including a barrage of insults "in the name of God," they'll turn out ignorant sooner or later.
Meanwhile, I argued... and argued.... and argued with *Fred,* since he wanted to take Genesis out of context and superimpose "birds" on the word for "Fowl" coming from the water, which actually means "insects" (I sent him the Tektonics link, on the usage of the word fowl = insects) but he ignored this, and continued to claim (despite being corrected 1000x times)... I mean, if you're Atheist, who needs to stick with facts or truth? afterall, there's no such thing as sin... and morals go right out the window.. no ethics, no standards, no honesty necessary. Atheism has saved them from that awful obligation called "intellectual honesty")... that Genesis is speaking of "birds" when it speaks of "fowl". . .
. . . but hey, after considering it, it was an interesting argument from at least a scientific p.o.v., (an argument that Darwin himself would appreciate). It doesn't do much for the Young Earth Creationist argument about Creation... but it does wonders for Evolution theory. Ha ha ha... yes, Fred, a self-proclaimed Agnostic and Darwinist... was caught red-handed in the act of DENYING EVOLUTION and Science!
Typical Devonian Period Environment, 480-360 Million Years Ago
Source: Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999 ISBN#1563318296
Birds have
The Y.E.C. may not have an answer for this, but Science/Paleontology does...and Genesis 1 raises the same issue. Creatures began in the water and emerged on land. This, the aquatic characteristics shared between all birds, is a definite question, Charles Darwin could fully appreciate.
*Fred* argued blue in the face, that birds came to exist _on land_. In his kindergarten view of evolution, and Hollywood-based understanding of Paleontology, he visualizes animals wandering around in deserts to qualify as "terrestrial"... with little or no water in sight. BUT THIS WAS SIMPLY NOT TRUE FOR THE EARLIEST CREATURES. Take a look at so called "terrestrial" tetrapods. Complete with four legs, and still living IN THE WATER as I was desperately trying to explain to him.
Typical Carboniferous Period Environment, 360-286 Million Years Ago
Source: Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999 ISBN#1563318296
The same for bird ancestors. They came from water origins... they clinged around beds of water, hunting for prey, and gathering berries and other food. ALL BIRDS... not just geese and swans, possess characteristics of aquatic creatures. The grand-father of all birds, was somewhere around the water's edge like other contemporaries of his age... and passed those aquatic traits on, to all modern birds. Even the Canary and Cardinal, cannot escape its origins and will continue to pass on the aquatic eyelid, the aquatic waterproof feathers and scaled feet of its earliest ancestor. This is how evolution (as science) works... it not only moves forward, it almost always retains characteristics from its origins.
Typical Triassic Period Environment, 245-208 Million Years Ago
Source: Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999 ISBN#1563318296
**I really don't see the need to proceed beyond the Triassic (which I personally believe would've produced the ancestor to _all birds_), because by the next period, the Jurassic (208-144 Million Years Ago), the fully formed and functional "bird" Archaeopteryx, was already living (and according to one source I've read thus far, scientists do not believe Archaeopteryx is the actual ancestor to all birds, a type of evolutionary dead end)... I'm discussing *the one true* original fossil ancestor of birds, which even Dr. Alan Feduccia (an expert in the subject) confesses is unknown to science.
But for posterity sake, I'll proceed _beyond_ the time of Archaeopteryx. Here's yet another image of a typical Cretaceous (144-66 Million Years Ago) environment... millions of years after Archaeopteryx, and the creatures are _still thriving around the water, and Water's Edge.
Typical Cretaceous Period Environment, 144-66 Million Years Ago
Source: Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999 ISBN#1563318296
This is an argument based strictly on what Darwin himself would've taught... what Science teaches... and in Genesis, with "Let the water bring forth.."
lol! When Agnostics are making arguments against Evolution to dispute Genesis, you already know they're desperate.
See attached image for "terrestrial tetrapods". And from all that I know of the earliest tetrapods and following evolutionary epochs didn't change much for aquatic-based habitat preference for most creatures. Even the oldest known horse ancestor's anatomy, dated around 50 mya, was built for walking on wetland...
but leave it to an Agnostic to deny Genesis, and without realizing it, denying Evolution and every established scientific teaching.
Yes... the grand-father of birds came from an environment, very much like the environment seen in the attached image. His entire anatomy testifies to his origins. He was Aquatic in origin, and all his descendents retain Aquatic Characteristics. What Fred was arguing was not only non-scientific, but, un-Darwinian.
And even worse than this..
As I pointed out last night, concerning snakes (which are too fragile to serve much good in the area of fossil preservation) therefore, due to only a scant fossil record, scientists have two on-going theories, whether or not snakes originated from water-dwelling mesosaurs, or land-dwelling lizards. Birds, like snakes, and most plant-life, do _not_ preserve well... along with many other organisms, leave few to no fossils. Only in special environmental conditions preserve softer body organisms, those lacking hard-bone and body structure. Even special environmental conditions are required to preserve even some of the hard-bodied organisms!
BTW, "terrestrial" does not mean necessarily living in the desert like Hollywood teaches the masses with its terrible misinformation, however, the truth about the earliest creatures on earth, is more like Carl Zimmer's book, "At the Water's Edge," as in the so-called terrestrial Alligator and Crocodile, which spent part if not most of their time around the water... or, another better example, the "Walking Whale" Ambulocetus Natans, precursor to modern whales, which scientists theorize was an ambush hunter, who dwelled at "the water's edge," and returned to the water. So it actually never (fully) left the water to begin with, did it?
When Agnostics are soooo desperate to deny Genesis, they sometimes end up denying science, as well.
Meanwhile, because Agnostics believe they "have all truths," and like a religion, "Absolute Truths"... swearing blue in the face, that birds did not evolve from Aquatic origins.
Funny, during brief correspondence with Dr. Alan Feduccia, he confirmed they do not know what the ancestor of Archaeopteryx was... in fact, in his book he refers to the ancestors of birds, as "whatever they were," and in one link that Fred provided me with... Dr. Feduccia concluded, "What group of reptiles (erm, tetrapods)?"
The Origin and Evolution of Birds, by Alan Feduccia, ISBN #0300078617
"Reptile" is such a misleading term... one might be mislead, erroneously assuming that when Scientists speak of "Tetrapods," and say "Reptiles," they actually mean, "Reptilians" as in cold-blooded. Actually the scientist means "tetrapods"... and as Dr. Feduccia summed up in his correspondence with me, it is very difficult to know anything about Physiology (warm-blood vs. cold-blood) from FOSSILS.
Yet, with all this admission by an expert on Avian origins, and the widespread _lack of knowledge_ about bird origins, leave it to the Agnostic to fill in the holes, complete with theories as patent answers, and such ARROGANCE to assume knowing more than the scientists themselves! The Agnostic chimes in with his "absolute truths," that birds did not have origins around the water.
Yet, if Darwin's theory is correct, then,
1. Waterproof Feathers
2. Scales on Feet
3. Nicititating eyelid
Points to origins around an aquatic environment, those characteristics did not emerge from "thin air."
Creationists may teach "characteristics in creatures came out of thin air." Science does not. Seems now, some Agnostics are teaching the same thing.
We can look at modern creatures, and still tell something about their ancestors. All birds (even purely terrestrial ones) characteristics scream "AQUATIC ORIGINS". To understand origins, scientists compare modern anatomy with fossils that are dug up out of the ground. It is called "Comparative Anatomy"... but leave it to an Agnostic, to deny Science and Darwin's studies into Paleontology.. as well as books like "AquaGenesis" by Richard Ellis and Carl Zimmmer's "At The Water's Edge."
I really don't think Fred realized how his anti-Theist zealotry could lead him so far astray, into denying established science itself!
As I have said, there have never been two more destructive groups to science, than the so-called "Darwinists" (Atheists guising their agenda behind Darwin's theory) and having no actual understanding or love for science, ... and YEC who base all their arguments on what these jokers claim science teaches. Just like these so-called Darwinists never actually address a single verse in Genesis... beyond idolatrous attempts to distort it, otherwise, their arguments consist of a total basis on YEC interpretations, while YEC steadily base their rebuttals on Darwinist arguments against Genesis.
A downward spiral of the blind, leading the blind astray.
As Dr. Feduccia put it in the media, "Science can't get a fair hearing".
How often Atheists have complained about the Creationist's "Circular Reasoning," when they themselves, denying all along their own unscientific based religion of Anti-Theism, alas comes "fool circle" itself.
... Oooo, *pun* ! Atheists love those.
Creationists assumed "God created," (because they didn't pay close attention to the literal text), but tell me where the word "Created" is even mentioned in Epoch Three regarding the "designs" of plants:
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth (tender) grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Can anyone point out where God "designed" the plants?
I'm sure if God had hand-designed, "created," it might've speeded things up a billion years or two... but, God instructed the earth to create the algae, and plant-life that followed it.
I'm not saying that God never had any thing to do with some touching up of genetic blueprints in plant organisms (as it appears to be the case in diatoms with their extreme geometrical designs)... but if God involved himself in any way, shape or form with creation of plants, Genesis fails to mention this.
Leaving "creation" up to the Earth and Waters, explains what Science has discovered for the 4 or 5 billion or so year, age of the Earth.
Even Epoch 5 omits any mention of "create" until the Waters had brought forth "abundantly" . . . and the text states, (modifies) creates them "after their kind."
Completely evolution, under God's patience and guidance.
The only question is, Who or What, are the Darwinists actually making their arguments with?? Because, it's certainly not the text of Genesis.
No comments:
Post a Comment