Posted by: Rob Lester | November 14, 2012

A Dinosaur Ate My Theory

Every proverb is rooted in truth. The dog who “ate my homework” has found a real counterpart in a recent Science Daily News article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120829171943.htm). A dinosaur named Sinocalliopteryx gigas was discovered with three birds in its stomach. For evolutionists who believe birds evolved from dinosaurs, this presents a real problem. The irony is that this fossil was discovered in China’s Liaoning province. This area has been hailed as the “Promised Land” by those insisting birds evolved from dinosaurs. The very place which burst onto the scene with the long-awaited fossil “evidence” proving dino-bird evolution has now yielded up example after example that disproves the very theory it gave birth to (in addition to several fakes). In the Science Daily News article (linked above), evolutionists try valiantly to make the dino-bird gap smaller by suggesting (without evidence) that Confuciusornis was a “primitive bird…probably limited to slow takeoffs and short flights.” This is not only untrue (http://preachrr.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/what%e2%80%99s-a-bird-like-you-doing-in-an-era-like-this) but also utterly irrelevant. Today we see housecats (earth-bound mammals) easily catching and eating modern birds fully capable of flight. No one is suggesting cats are evolving into birds, are they? As if that wasn’t bad enough, another troublesome dinner has upset the evolutionary narrative. Another alleged “transitional form,” Microraptor gui, was also found with birds in its stomach (www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2064952/Microraptor-First-proof-bird-eating-dinosaur-scientists-flap.html). Awfully hard to be eaten by one’s ancient predecessor separated by 10-25 million of years, isn’t it? Or, as evolutionist Dr. Alan Feduccia admitted regarding Microraptor: “You can’t be older than your grandfather” (http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur). Take the time to read all the provided links to fully understand just how weak the “dinosaur-to-bird” theory is.

 http://creation.com/dinos-ate-birds

About these ads

Responses

  1. Yes but this just proves that there is much more to learn. What it does not prove is that the earth is only a few thousand years old and was created in six days.

  2. That is not the point of this particular post…

  3. Danny, [edit] you’re just regurgitating false claims made by evolutionists that you’ve read somewhere…
    [edit]
    Nowhere in the Bible does it claim the “days” of creation were literal days of 24 hrs – these were phases, or eras.
    Another statement made is that 1000 years is a day in God’s eyes;
    so if you insist on using semantics to support your point, consider that the ‘days’ were ~1000 year periods, and not literal days…

    Also, “Young Earth Creationism” is a very RECENT idea, conceived by some clergyman who attempted to come to an exact date of Creation using calculations to deduce points in time. So again, NOWHERE in the Bible does it say anything about the Earth being so young (on the contrary, implications are made of the Earth’s extreme antiquity), or about the days of creation being 24-hr periods.
    [edit]
    If you pull your head out of the sand, and try to be less myopic, you’ll find that there are more VALID scientific claims in the Bible than incorrect ones!
    Evidence of a massive flood/deluge abound all over the world, yet scientists concocted the Ice Age Theory, and attributed all evidence of a flood to this theory; this is easily seen and verified, as the majority of the evidence used to support Ice Ages and glacial action is Much better explained by a flood, such as marine fossils being found on the highest mountains all over the world, “bone caves”; containing various types of animals, flying, terrestrial, and aquatic, altogether.

    I could go on for hours about the contradictions and fallacies of evolutionary theory, and the scientific validity of the Bible:

    – The concept of irreducible complexity (which has absolutely NOT been disproved, no matter how often people try to claim it has been — one of the most prominent speakers against this concept, in his lecture on 'debunking irreducible complexity', achieves the exact opposite by not being able to reduce the molecular structure of his example to its simplest components, and show that each was an independent functional structure before becoming components of a more complex whole, i.e., the structure could not be reduced further, therefore he PROVED that this structure IS in fact irreducibly complex!

    – Knowledge that the Earth in fact orbited the SUN — a fact that wouldn't be put forth and accepted until Millennia later!

    – also spoken of is the substantial age of the universe (NOT a few thousand years, as mistaken "Young Earth Creationists" assert, and which is NOT claimed in the Bible)

    – Instructions for human waste management and its uncleanliness, and why it should be handled in a certain way for the health of the people — shows they were aware of maladies and infections, etc., could be caused by exposure to excrement

    – The days (NOT LITERAL 24 hour periods!!) of Creation actually make sense, and the tasks completed during each day(phase) of Creation are in a logical order that would 'make sense' if everything were created step by step as so…

    There are Countless more examples, but I'm sure you're capable of doing independent research on both sides of the debate, and if you're not, you're probably so stuck in the belief of the dogma that is evolutionary theory that NO amount of facts, data and other evidences will change your mind…

    Irrational, illogical, and nonsensical is how I describe that (NON)scientific rationality and approach to these problems
    — "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up!" riight? this is the attitude shown regarding any questioning or criticism of evolutionary theory… not very scientific :)

    In a very general sense, evolution *appears to stand true (btw ppl who are 'against' Evolution, are not necessarily saying that the ENTIRE theory is wrong, just some of its core assertions) on the surface, but when you dig deeper, the theory breaks down and reveals itself to be largely incorrect. The biochemical challenges to the theory of evolution are one of MANY nails in the coffin for this theory. It's only a matter of time before more people wake up to the truth!

    – MICROevolution is clearly observed in numerous animal species, and that's fine; adaptation within the species leading to slightly different features – a far cry from every living organism coming from a single celled organism, and progressing from there.
    Buuuut, MACROevolution, the changing of one species into another, then into another, and another, ad infinitum is complete BS.
    It would require millions of years of UNINTERRUPTED evolution for minuscule beneficial mutations to add up.

    The proposed mechanisms for natural selection and random mutations are simply ridiculous, and could NOT possibly have occurred the way proponents claim. It's STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Mutations are RARELY beneficial; most are detrimental and usually LETHAL. DNA replication processes have built-in error-checking mechanics that PREVENT ANY ATTEMPTED CHANGES to the DNA. A female's ova supply is set; the ova are already created in surplus, and released one at a time each month. Therefore the chromosomes are not changed after this, as they're already 'made', and therefore any mutations that female undergoes due to environmental conditions, etc., during her life cannot possibly be passed onto her offspring.

    It has never been documented that any living creature is capable of changing its number of chromosomes, let alone EVERY!!! species, which is necessary for macroevolution to be true…

    The utter lack of true, incontrovertible transitional fossils speaks for itself, effectively KILLING this inadequate theory… There should be THOUSANDS of them, documenting the change from species to species… this lil tidbit is conveniently 'explained away' or more often simply ignored, as is all evidence against the theory.

    Being 'the best explanation we have at this time' does not make the theory any more true…

    • Steven, thank you for taking the time to prepare such a thorough comment. I took the liberty of editing out some statements which were off-topic where you promoted false Jehovah’s Witness doctrine. I also deleted a couple of ad honinem insults directed at Danny. I would like to respond to a couple of points in your comment.

      The Hebrew word for “day” used in Genesis chapter one is “yom.” In its very first appearance in the Bible, God defines what He meant by “day” in Genesis 1:5 “God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” Pretty simple. Yom appears 359 times outside of Genesis chapter one accompanied by an ordinal (number, first, second, etc.). In every one of these instances, immediate context demands that a normal 24-hour day be understood. It is poor hermeneutics to carve out one chapter of the OT and claim a different meaning to bolster your theory and then accept the standard meaning for the rest of scripture (even the remainder of the same book!). If the creation days were not 24-hour days then the sabbath command based upon it is hopelessly confusing and utterly meaningless. Consider Exodus 20:8-11 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” By your reckoning, Israel would work for six eons of time (as yet undetermined) and then rest for an eon. Nonsense. Jews have correctly understood this command to refer to seven 24-hour days (as should everyone).

      You also claim that young earth creationism is a recent theory. Not true. It was the standard interpretation for several thousand years and only with the development of modernism and Darwinism in the mid-ninteenth century did the literal days of creation begin to be questioned. I assume you were referring to Bishop Ussher’s timeline. His counting method was admittedly flawed and only gave a rough timetable, but not exact dates. Still, even allowing for gaps within the genealogies, the earth cannot be older than 10,000 years if the Bible is to be believed. Ussher was not introducing a radical new theory, he was only trying to quantify what everyone already believed.

      Thanks again for the comment, Steven


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 43 other followers

%d bloggers like this: