Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Turns Out, Science and Religion Get Along Just Fine

page: 19
23
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Concerning birds.

abcnews.go.com...


The true origin of birds is still up in the air.


-Alan Feduccia

en.wikipedia.org...

The origin of birds...a fun debate but one I am not an expert in.

Protopteryx - 120 Million year old bird. Granted it's from the Mesozoic time period which is when birds are believed to have evolved.

Longisquama - a 240 Million year old creature that is lizard like, however it's fossil shows it had feather like structures and could have had Pterosaur like wings (possibly an ancestor?)

There is actually a growing number of scientists who think birds did not evolve from dinosaurs (therapods), but from a different common ancestor. We just don't know what that is yet so they stick with the current theory.

edit on 27-2-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


There is actually a growing number of scientists who think birds did not evolve from dinosaurs (therapods),

Growing? Everything I read is that it's a small number, and the majority consensus is they did. Maybe I am wrong.


but from a different common ancestor. We just don't know what that is yet so they stick with the current theory.

Right and in that event the common ancestor is still a land based animal prior to the evolution of flight.

Thus still in conflict with Genesis.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


If that time comes I'll reevaluate :-)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 

What I mean is science is not doubting whether creatures with flight evolved from non-avian land creatures. It still conflicts with what Genesis says. Which has flying creatures existing on day 5 and all land creatures on day 6.
edit on 27-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


How do you know it's land based? That's Your assumption. Once/if it is discovered we'll talk...

www.newscientist.com...
edit on 27-2-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   

raymundoko
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


How do you know it's land based? That's Your assumption. Once/if it is discovered we'll talk...

www.newscientist.com...
edit on 27-2-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)


Nah, just a vision....

Based on evidence, it is easy to find how life evolved...

Just wondering, are you using an evolution argument to contradict another evolution argument. You will be surprised that if presented with enough evidence, people who follow science will move to new ideas, where creationists... 'nuff said... just ask Ken Ham....



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


It's not mine.

Paleontologists are not saying birds didn't evolve from land based animals. Science does not at all agree with the idea birds were flying around prior to all the land based animals. There was literally millions of years of land based animals prior to birds and the development of their flight. What you mentioned about other scientists is still in support of that. They are still talking about a land based ancestor.

Now since Genesis says birds were flying in the sky before all land animals all we need to see is science saying they developed their flight from land based animals to show that's not correct. Here is one of countless things I could link to support what I am saying [on that note feel free to link something to the contrary]:

The majority consensus is that modern birds share a common ancestor with this:

Berkeley.edu/Dromaeosauridae

and that's from the Jurassic Period. Don't forget about the Triassic and Permian Period before that with land animals.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


Umm.... Flying fish don't fly around in the sky like birds [which is what Genesis says]. They leap out of the water. Your link also says that is from the Triassic Period. We have the Permian period prior to that with land animals.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


I don't agree with Ken Ham...and I believe in evolution...so not sure what your point is.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Yeah and fish don't walk around on land. They go there for a just a but then wriggle back unto the water...

See what I did there?

Again, the bird debate gets rehashed every year or so. Once it's settled I'll review it.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 

I don't see your point.

Who is saying birds evolved from flying fish other than you. That article you linked wasn't saying that. All it was saying was that new fossil findings suggest their evolution is pushed back. The only connection between what we are discussing is the word 'flying'. Flying fish don't fly in the skies and scientists are not saying they evolved to.

I thought this was about reconciling science with religion? What you are doing is denying what science says about the evolution of birds. That image I posted about denying observations to preserve faith is coming to mind.


Again, the bird debate gets rehashed every year or so.

There isn't debate in the science community on whether birds evolved from land animals.
edit on 28-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   

raymundoko
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


I don't agree with Ken Ham...and I believe in evolution...so not sure what your point is.


What exactly is your point?

You believe in evolution, or you believe evolution did happen?

Now, back to origin, how did it all start?

Do you believe in abiogenesis or you believe that little angry man from sky created everything in 6 days? Does mixing of star dust withing millions of year that lead to first single cell organisms sounds better then creation?



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


7 day creation only matches what we know happened. If you squint real hard and think happy thoughts.. Even hindsight it doesn't match up. Your teaching amigo



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


You haven't read the thread. I already stated I don't believe it was 6 literal days along with the reasoning involved. Many theologians agree with my view.

Yes, I believe everything was created, by what means is debatable in different religious sects.

I know God used a rib from Adam to make Eve which indicates he may have used natural laws to perform the creation. (Cloning, genetics, cross species etc)

As an educated man I agree that the evolutionary process is the best explanation for the rise of life on the earth. By what means it was triggered is where I would differ from an atheist.

I readily admit flying creatures being created with the sea life is an issue. I haven't denied that. I have linked well known experts in the field that the origin of birds is still up for debate. I know we used to think birds came about 65 million years go, then 120, then 150, then 180, then 220 and now flying creatures as far back as 240.

It used to be thought birds evolved from Therapods, but now they had a common yet undiscovered ancestor. Consensus believes it is potentially a land dweller...we'll see.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I am going on vacation for a week in 45 minutes.

When I get back I'd like to start a new thread with it's own topic as we've drifted so far off the OP.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


We haven't drifted off topic at all!

It's being addressed directly my friend.

OP:


Most people say science and religion are not at odds with each other.



I am a scientist holding multiple bachelors degrees as well as a masters. I am also a believer in God. I believe science and religion are reconcilable. It's nice to see that even though most media wants to demonize those who believe in God/Creation the truth finds it's way out.


Your OP was about 1) scientists believing in religion despite people thinking otherwise and 2) religion and science being reconcilable.

Good luck with your next thread. Sorry you can't acknowledge the fact Genesis isn't reconcilable with science. Maybe some other time.
edit on 28-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


Consensus believes it is potentially a land dweller...we'll see.

Not potentially. The scientific consensus is that it is a land dweller.


I know God used a rib from Adam to make Eve

You know? What do you mean by know? Did you literally witness it via a vision like you said a person witnessed the story of Genesis? That would make you a prophet, yes?

Don't you mean you don't know but you have faith it's true?



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I'd wager, LL, that they know it the same way you and I know that gravity is a fundamental force.

The difference is that if someone proved that gravity is caused by heavy little cherubs tomorrow, we'd likely change our belief. Just show me the cherub, let me weigh him, and I'm good to go.

But, how can you prove notGod? How one ever prove that an infinite all powerful unknowable unmeasurable THING is not?

edit on 18Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:35:36 -060014p062014266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join