Archaeopteryx: Another Darwinian Deadend

This is a perching bird and no amount of paleo-babble is going to change that

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• evolution
• Darwin
• creation
• science
• creation ministries
• russ miller
• birds

[paleobarbie666]

WHAT modern birds in the layers below Archeopteryx? Name just one.

[MikeyyPe]

@TheScienceFoundation You forgot that we have never seen pluto orbit the sun so therefore we can't say it is orbiting the sun.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CreationMinistries

I should obviously start with the basics.

Do you understand that that past has already happened?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CreationMinistries Again 'we don't have a time machine, therefore probabilistic scenarios based on observed mechanisms cannot be right no matter what' is not an argument

'Nothing blowing up to form everything; the formation of the big rock; the rain upon the rock; & life beginning'

Well that one's easy; redwinebuzz(.)com/winesooth/wp­-content/uploads/2009/02/straw­man.jpg

So by your 'we didn't see it' logic, when do we get to see god creating anything at all?

[CreationMinistries]

@TheScienceFoundation OBSERVABLE? Yes, I am ignorant of this OBSERVABLE real science. Please let us know who OBSERVED this supposed common ancestor with the fusion event; Nothing blowing up to form everything; the formation of the big rock; the rain upon the rock; & life beginning. Once this OBSERVABLE real science is covered we'lll get into the fairy tale of Darwinism. Looking forward to seeing this OBSERVABLE real science so my ignorance can be corrected or your ignorance can be exposed

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CreationMinistries Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not understood by real science.  Evolution explains the arrangement of our chromosome 2 through actual observable natural genetic processes. When you respond lately it appears only to project even further the weakness of your position.

[CreationMinistries]

@TheScienceFoundation You don't seem to be able to comprehend that everytime we don't understand something you say: evolution did it. Then you call whatever the issue is proof for Darwinism when in fact you have none. To be both fair and honest, Iwhen I do respond to you it is only to give you a little more rope to hang yourself with

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CreationMinistries No, not your strawman at all, try actually learning what I'm taking the time to teach you. A man with 44 chromosomes means that there are known natural processes that can produce our chromosome 2, as opposed to creation that can only assert 'magic did it'

'We don't have a time machine' is not a valid argument against historical science and 'kind' is still a useless assertion because it's never defined to any useful degree.

[CreationMinistries]

@TheScienceFoundation

A man with 44 c's means we evolved from a rock? Macro-evolution, Darwinism, is non-observable. Claiming biblically correct micro-evolution (kinds after their kind) is all you can show. Bait & switch is all you have - admit it

[TheScienceFoundation]

For anyone interested, the man with 44 chromosomes;

thetech(.)org/genetics/news(.)­php?id=124