Did u see the nat geo article that spoke about a perfectly formed bird encapsulated in amber there in the exact same i think carboniferous fossil layer with the dinos?
I’m going to need to see a reference for that one.
Edit: I found it. It’s from the Cretaceous, approximately 99 million years ago, well after modern birds had evolved. Not Carboniferous period.
1 Like
Now see what you did, yet again?
You simultaneously accepted “CD” if guided… and yet expressed sufficient skepticism of CD that you are inclined to see super-natural special creation as the more likely alternative.
And so, you have convinced me…
… that i must now start consistently using the new phrase:
“… Guided Common Descent…”
to help people with Phobias of Common Descent get over their phobia!!!
1 Like
Maybe you should re-word that sentence implying it was a MODERN bird?
The article says:
“… The structure of its feathers and skeleton suggests it was an enantior-nithine, a type of primitive bird that went extinct with the non-avian dinosaurs 66 million years ago… They have a weakly developed rachis, or central shaft, so they may not have been excellent flyers. In life, the bird would have had teeth in its beak…”
For the record, i stand w Dr kurt wise as i do not believe that swamp land is the most logical explanation for coal seams. Secondly, you are right…i just found the article about birds. The point is, is that the accepted dino evolving to bird theory that was suggested to be 60 million yrs ago is now 100 million yrs. Now i see info about dinos and birds both disappearing and birds re evolving etc.
Darwin has imprinted such a single minded materialistic view of the nature of things that mainstream science is impossibly entangled in its web. Problem is, after such a pounding of such indoctrination and even threat of removal of further education if any contrary beliefs, the scientist does not realize they are in the web. They are like a frog in a lukewarm kettle slowly turning up the heat to boiling and a motionless frog.
Er, no. The avian lineage first split from maniraptoran dinosaurs at least 170 MYA. Flying creatures we now consider birds came along around 120 MYA, plus or minus.
What a bizarre analogy. Whatever does it mean?
2 Likes
“Frog in a kettle” is a book. A frog placed in lukewarm water with temps increased slowly, the frog remains and boils to death. The powers of indoctrination of our minds follow suit unless we are highly discerning
Here is a link about modern birds i read: The Life of Birds | Evolution
So this theory suggests that modern birds did not evolve fr dinos but independently 60 mya. Todays scientist is so blindsighted by principles of naturalistic evolutionism that when evidence contrary to the mold, they just expand the mold to fit the evidence. The bird in amber looked to have all of the makings of a modern bird…but found 100mya.
This is bizarre. Do you enjoy this?
What in the world does that have to do with the solid sciences supporting evolutionary theory?
Yet the second paragraph of your linked article reads:
“Then, several hundred million years ago, huge and often terrifying new life forms, Pterosaurs, or flying dinosaurs, took the ascendancy. These massive creatures had wings of skin, stretched between one enormously elongated finger and their flanks. Around 150 million years ago they were joined by - or, as many scientists say, they began to turn into - a much more aerodynamic, feathered creature. The bird was born.”
How in the world did you get 60 MY out of 150 MY?
1 Like
Read on. Dinos and flying dinos went extinct then modern birds evolved 60 mya apart from dinos. That is what it says i believe. Confusing mess of conforming evidence into an evolutionary worldview.
Is English your first language? The PBS article says nothing even close to that. It says birds existed along with the dinosaurs from at least 150 MYA. Many of those avian lineages went extinct 66 MYA with the Chicxulub impactor which took out the dinosaurs. Extant birds species then evolved from the several bird lineages which survived the 66 MYA extinction event.
The only one confused around here seems to be you. Didn’t you just post about a bird found in 99 MYA amber?
2 Likes
.Must read the entire article…i buzzed thru it so was not exacting on my description. See where Prof Alan Feduccia of u of NC holds a minority evolutionary view that suggests that dinos and flying dinos went extinct and modern birds evolved separate fr dino lineage from a four legged forrest dwelling animal. This is just a minority view that hints more towards the idiocy of convergent evolution.
Of course i read this stuff and really only believe that the birds micro adapted from bird kinds created by God a shorter time ago. I still enjoy reading all of the ideas out there and have a good laugh at how confident these guys sound about things occurring a purported 100 plus mya. Modern medicine changes month to month and yet we are confident about stuff millions of years ago. Frog in a kettle.
Sorry i did not relay the info well on that one!
You flubbed that one too. Feduccia thinks birds split off the more basal archosaurs (which the article calls four legged reptiles) before the theropods did back in the Triassic over 200 MYA. He’s pretty much the only one in paleontology to hold that opinion. I have no idea where you’re getting this “birds evolved after dinos went extinct” bit.
Thanks for clarifying. Apparently im not too intrigued or interested to take detailed notes let alone digest as truth from guys who make such arrogant claims about stuff in the deep past based on fossil fragments. If it is known that recent historians can often inadvertently err on more recent events, then youd think that the language used in hypotheses of the history of the world would be written in a language style that is much more humble. The faux confidence rides indoctrinated belief from the church of darwin. I dont attend that church.
LOL! You continually butcher the actual science, admit you have no interest in learning, then wonder why people just laugh at your attacks on the silly strawmen versions of evolution you invent.
1 Like
Hmm. I have no interest to learn from mainstream who make lofty declarations that are based on naturalistic interpretations who then use language to suggest they are absolutely true because it is “scientific” These forget to realize that “science” gives no permission to declare that science is the ultimate determiner of what is ultimately true. So i have interest to learn, but not in the narrow point of view that you do, Patrick, i mean Timothy. I learn by accessing a multi faceted perspective that also lives outside of the material. So shoot me.
For you to suggest that i need to concentrate on learning from your kind by acknowleging every detail of a particular pbs publication in every last detail is like asking a guy who loves to watch professional football to anknowlege in detail the winners, losers and all of the stats in the fantasy football league!
Try 150mya. Where are you getting 60?
Edit: someone beat me to it
Then keep getting your “science” from AIG and ICR and looking like a willful ignoramus. The rest of us always appreciate the comic relief. 
1 Like
For the record, in that article a supposed minority viewpoint suggested that the modern bird evolved away fr dino lineage 60 mya. I read it hastily missing the fact that this is only a minority view. However, i have seen other articles state that the modern birds have been evolving for 60 mya in agreement w this guy so i wonder what the reasoning behind it. Now we find a modern bird form perfectly encased in amber dating 99 mya! Think about that…100 mya a bird that resembles one living today. That is 100,000,000 years ago, a bird resembling a modern bird encased in amber was found. A thousand years is a long time. 100,000 years is a really long time. But 100 million years ago a bird similar to those we see today perched in our trees?? Stuff like this gives rise to suspicions beyond compare in my mind…reason enough to begin to believe that all those smart sounding scientists are more hot air.
(facepalm) No the article didn’t say that. Your reading skills are atrocious. Extant birds evolved from the previous bird lineages which survived the Chicxulub extinction even as I have already corrected you on. Feduccia just thinks birds and theropod dinos had a common ancestor 200 MYA instead of birds evolving from theropods 150 MYA.
The bird in amber was only superficially similar to extant birds. It belonged to a group which went extinct 66 MYA with the dinosaurs. There were significant morphological differences between it and modern birds.
2 Likes