Jump to content

AlanF

Member
  • Content Count

    532
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by AlanF

  1. Arauna said: Oh, so some animals just decided to eat meat, rearranged their teeth and lots of other apparatus, redesigned their digestive systems, and installed new, predatory instincts. Do you have the faintest idea how ludicrous your claims are? What "grave pits"? Provide source references. Your memory is crap. JW Insider said: That's what she's saying, although she's too stupid to know it. Note that this is another young-earth creationist website, and suffers from most of the usual problems: most of the sources are hopelessly out of date (1945, 1966), the arguments leave out important facts, etc. -- pretty much the same dishonesty as you find in Watchtower literature. Recent fossil discoveries have shown that there were a lot more types of mammals living before the dinosaurs died out. All were no bigger than a raccoon, and most were the size of a mouse. That appears to be true all the way back to when relatively modern mammals appeared toward the end of the Triassic Period, around 200-220 million years ago. Right. But the article clearly tried to give the impression that fully modern mammals and birds lived with the dinosaurs. Which goes back half a billion years. Arauna said: Less complimentary terms are warranted. You know this how? Ah, 10,000x sped up evolution in action! Yes, they just magically decided to change themselves. LOL! T-Rex teeth are not suitable for eating vegetation. There are plenty of examples of ancient animals whose teeth are clearly made for eating vegetation. According to Hezekiah chapter 23? Or what?
  2. Arauna said: Are you really as dumb as you sound? How does what you said have anything to do with what I said? Totally clueless. Both animals that tolerate poison and the poisonous plants evolved together, at the same time and by small steps over a long period of time. LOL! Those mathematicians are almost ALL creationists, like Berlinsky. The rest are evident crackpots in the field of evolution. That was sarcastic, Einstein. No, you also lap up young-earth and ID-creationist nonsense. And you remain stuck in 40+ year old Watchtower teaching. Not cats. So? Their bodily systems can handle it -- those of cats can't. Look at modern pet foods. All well and good for carrion eaters, but most such critters are also active predators. And then you have the many pure predators such snakes of all sorts, spiders, centipedes, scorpions, etc. etc. etc. Why do you think they have nerve and muscle toxins? Why are constrictor snakes obviously designed to kill by constriction? Of course. Huge serrated, steak-knife teeth? What do you think those were for? Quite a number of prey animals have been found, such as Hadrosaurs, that had bites taken out of them, which healed, as shown by the growth of new bone. Do you think that God resurrected them? LOL! Most paleontologists and many other scientists do a great deal of fieldwork. You're too ignorant for words. And? Duh. But even that's wrong: ever hear of the packs of wild dogs of Africa? And packs of hyaenas? Obvious herbivores have teeth very different from obvious carnivores. You have no idea what you're talking about. Wrong. "The eye position of Tyrannosaurus rex was similar to that of modern humans." (
      Hello guest!
    ) Apparently its huge jaws were sufficient to dispatch prey. You don't know the half of it. What is the source for this? T-Rexes are now known to have been somewhat social animals in that they cared for their young, but so far as I'm aware there is no evidence that they lived in groups larger than immediate family groups. Your point? You know this how? Noooo!!! These are not historical sciences. As I already explained, historical and observational sciences like physics are different animals and by their nature, must follow different rules. Nonsense. Evolutionary Theory takes full advantage of historical science. I've already given you links on this, which you've duly ignored. Such as how historical science helped with the 2004 discovery of that most incredible intermediate fossil Tiktaalik (
      Hello guest!
    ) I've told you TWICE already: U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. With the earth 4.55 billion years old, a bit less than half the original amount remains. Why do you keep pretending that I have not already answered you? Are you completely senile? You keep asking questions I've already answered several times.
  3. JW Insider said: Yes. The more likely explanation is that there is no such God. Tell that to your young-earth creationist friend Arauna. This harks back to the 1943 book "The Truth Shall Make You Free", which ridiculous book had chapters on how the earth was formed. An amusingly cartoonish romp. He was in his attempts to get the Governing Body, in the 1990s, to take the child molestation business seriously. He was thoroughly dishonest in his writings about evolution/creation, the notion that the Bible is scientifically accurate, and many other things. I'm in the middle of an essay that examines various Watchtower publications on the evolution/creation question and so forth. Peloyan clearly wrote a thoroughly dishonest Awake! article on this in 1963. From the writing style and the repeated false arguments and the overall manner of dishonesty, I can also see that he wrote the 1967 Evolution book, the 1985 Creation book, the 1998 Creator book, and several W/G articles along the way. Of course. Several ex-Bethelites told me about that, and Peloyan didn't deny it when I challenged him about the dishonesty in that book. He didn't admit it -- he rationalized that misquoting was not actually dishonest. Exactly.
  4. Arauna said: Your view of science is grossly deficient. No historical sciences can reproduce anything that happened just once in history. Your statement is another straw man. By your 'reasoning', all forensic science is invalid. All history other than that written down in books is invalid. Hypocrite! Do you need me to explain this a THIRD TIME? You're such a gross liar! Nope. As Wolfgang Pauli said about a colleague's misbegotten hypothesis: "It's not even wrong." But I've already told you about this, so either you remain abysmally stupid, or you're lying yet again. Which is it?Point being: before the earth and solar system coalesced, supernovas occurred that scattered uranium and other elements over the cosmos. When the earth coalesced and was bombarded by smaller bodies, it incorporated that uranium and such into its structure. No more uranium accumulated, nothing was "replenished". I already told you: a supernova "brough it here from that distance". You don't think so? Argue with the so-called "pillars of creation" photo from the Hubble telescope featured on the cover of the 1998 Creator book. Nonsense. Not to their lack of ability to synthesize the amino acid taurine (cf.
      Hello guest!
    ). To adapt, your God would have to modify all cats to be able to synthesize taurine -- it could not happen on its own -- unless you allow that evolution could occur in one generation. This is among the most ignorant statements I've ever seen. Let's just say: It's not even wrong.
  5. TrueTomHarley said: You're abysmally dishonest, TTH. I did not say they demur -- I said they directly answered the question. Obviously you don't, as will be immediately shown. Not necessarily. Watchtower leaders are well known for saying different things out of both sides of their mouths, and acting quite differently from their moral pronouncements. The two-facedness of JW leaders is much like that of the Pharisees: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you resemble whitewashed graves, which outwardly indeed appear beautiful but inside are full of dead men’s bones and of every sort of uncleanness. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." Simple, eh? They're vicious in that they tolerate no dissent, not even from sincere dissenters. They declare such ones "wicked apostates" worthy of eternal death at God's hands. Nope. Argue with Jesus, not me.
  6. Arauna said: That's why you're stuck in obsolete Watchtower teachings more than 40 years old, and continue setting forth young-earth creationist talking points. Yes indeed, you've certainly done your own research.
  7. TrueTomHarley said: They certainly do. This is not subjective, as your excuse claims: it is objective. If a quote changes the meaning of the original, or misrepresents what the original author intended, it is a misquote, a misrepresentation, period. There are hundreds of examples of this in Watchtower literature. Another straw man. Nothing -- as long as you also quote enough to show that he explained why the seeming absurdity is a misconception. That lack is why the Watchtower's misuse of Darwin's "eye quote" in the 1985 Creation book is so egregious, as are so many other misrepresentations. This is very simple: an honest writer does not misrepresent the words or views of those he quotes.
  8. JW Insider said: Your mother is hopelessly out of date here. Even the Society accepts the reality of the fossil record. What else does he have? Your son is far wiser than most JW kids. True on both counts. No Scientific Theory is ever final. It only becomes better and better verified over time, to the point where, as Stephen Jay Gould said, "It would be perverse not to accept it." Like the Theory of Gravity etc. Exactly. Yep. And if such a maverick theory stood up to all manner of rigorous tests, as the modern Theory of Evolution has, most scientists would be happy to adopt it. Right. Such disagreements are normal for a dynamic field of science. WTS writers are so well known for this dishonesty that most scientists laugh at them. Exactly. I've posted about such many times. Harry Peloyan, editor-in-chief of Awake!, once told me why they do it: they enjoy making secularists look bad. Apparently it didn't dawn on him that such tactics make the Watchtower Society a laughingstock in all arenas but the echo-chamber of the JW community. That's not a well thought out question. Since it's produced in supernovas, along with most other elements, it just IS. What use people put it to is a different issue. There's a lot of radioactive materials inside the earth. Some people have proposed that the earth's core is more or less a giant reactor. In any case, this internal radioactivity generates a lot of heat, which in turn drives plate tectonics, which in turn has made the oceans and continents into what they are today. Without those things, the earth's surface would long ago have eroded below sea level. Not entirely. For that to work, God would have to chain the brains of most predators. Or perhaps assign an angel to each predator. And of course, what would meat-eaters eat? Cats require meat, not vegetables. Half a billion. All of which goes to prove my contention: the Bible Creator is not loving.
  9. TrueTomHarley said: Pentecostals generally don't do that. Apparently you just make up "news" out of thin air -- just like your idol Trump. Correct. And obviously you have no answer against my proof. I never lie. You're doing what ever-Trumpers do very well -- project their own faults onto their opponents. LOL! Such a transparent liar. I explained all that in excruciating detail, and of course, accompanied all of my claims with quotes from Watchtower publications. And of course, "within the 20th century" obviously means "in or by 2000". More grasping at straws.
  10. For Big Old Woman Arauna: For the most part from here on in, I'm going to turn Arauna's dishonest "debate tactics" back on her: ignore some arguments, falsely claim that responses were never given, and so forth. Already answered. Now you answer similar ones. Where did God come from? Who created God? Where did God get all his "dynamic energy" from? How long has God existed? You just pulled that out of your ass. No one has such a "hypothesis". I think what you've done is confuse the 11 dimensions proposed by one of the string hypotheses with some of the multiverse hypotheses. But your senile old brain isn't firing on all cylinders. But you're too cowardly to let him evaluate answers such as I've given you about the decay of uranium-238 -- which I've given you two times now, and you've ignored each time. Wow, not only dishonest to a fault, but cowardly and senile! To some things, sure. To things like "what does the fossil record show?" they have plenty of answers. You just don't like them because they destroy your world view. Like, Who created God? LOL! Yet another creationist talking point. That's just one figure. And of course, you cannot name your source. And as I've carefully explained several times, the number is entirely subjective because it depends on exactly how one defines "explosion". You just don't learn. Nevertheless, even 10 million years is a long time for life to proliferate. LOL! Yet another instance of Orwellian crimestop. We note the refusal to self-educate. I already did. You've again ignored what I've said because your Orwellian crimestop kicked in.
  11. b4ucuhear said: Then you're an apostate, because that's what your Governing Body requires. You're a master of understatement. The cases of Carl Olof Jonsson and James Penton being prime examples. They think that because JW leaders have made it a disfellowshipping offense to disagree. I'm happy to meet one of the few JW apologists who straightforwardly admits to such faults, so good for you! I met an elder nearly 30 years ago with whom I had some frank talks. He had been an especially respected elder for several decades, and had a realistic view of the JW organization reminiscent of yours. He didn't believe about 80% of JW teachings. He said he had become an elder mainly to damp down "the bears", meaning elders who he felt mistreated "the flock". Despite his being an undercover apostate, he often entertained GB members and other Watchtower officials. Go figure. On an individual basis JWs tend to be exactly that. But the leaders are vicious, and no different from those of the 'Christendom' they love to bash. In certain ways they're even worse, since most such leaders make no arrogant claims to be divinely directed and are often not as hypocritical. JW leaders are well known for talking out of both sides of their mouths, claiming virtual inspiration out of one side, and excusing their false teachings and predictions out of the other side. You can see this sort of gross hypocrisy in several of the most rabid JW apologists posting on this board. I often taunt them in order expose their wicked attitudes. Indeed. Another instance of gross hypocrisy by JW leaders. Exactly. Even for an ostensibly good person, thinking that one speaks for God often emboldens one to act especially wickedly. As physicist Steven Weinberg said: << With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion. >> Would that JW leaders act accordingly. Yet, you know that if push comes to shove, the majority of JWs would act according to the tribalism they've been ingrained with, and side with their leaders irrespective of facts or "Bible standards" of honesty and morality. Thousands of instances of this have been posted online for decades. I've sometimes tested JWs who came to my door: "What if your organization began teaching that the moon is made of cheddar cheese? Would you reject such obvious nonsense?" Most have answered that they would go along with their organization. Tribalism at its best. Yes it can. And there is no reason to think that there must be a "best place to be". How about just quietly living a reasonably moral life free from as many bad influences -- like religion -- as possible? I see no change for the better. Rather, I see the opposite, as JW leaders circle the wagons and demonize critics more than ever. More than forty years ago when I was still a practicing JW, I understood quite well that to raise questions without a demeaning level of obsequiousness would get one disfellowshipped. After the April 1, 1986 Watchtower and other communications clearly indicated that even expressing contrary opinions privately -- not trying to teach them to others -- was grounds for disfellowshipping for apostasy, I realized that the JW leadership was unrepairably corrupt. Who in his right mind would want to be part of such an organization? As for "the promises found in God's Word", you first have to prove that this God exists, and that the Bible is His Word. But the Bible contains, as I'm sure you're aware, many contradictions with facts, such as in the Genesis account. In this area the Society has been especially remiss, publishing all manner of lies and misrepresentations.
  12. TrueTomHarley said: I clearly said that, you moron. Can't you read? Or is your brain still dead? Nope. You are committing the fallacy of not understanding what you read. I already went through that with various degrees of child molestation. Yep, a great big straw man alright -- invented because you can't understand written English. Any objective person reading your ridiculous responses and general lying would disagree. I unhesitatingly call spades spades and liars liars. You don't like it because you know you're a liar. Arbitrary? My 'criteria' are generally part of The Law and clearly indicated by so-called Bible Morality. You obviously know nothing of logic and intellect.
  13. b4ucuhear said: You're covering over the fact that in most regions only certain religious and other public officials are required by law to report. In the U.S., in most cases and due to the influence of religious leaders on lawmakers, elders are not so required. But they ought to be. That's why elders are supposed to check with the Service and/or Legal Departments, to see if they're required by law to report. So in most cases in the U.S., since the law doesn't require them to report, they don't. b4ucuhear said: The key concept here is spoken of. As I have repeatedly said, that means that such 'appointment' by God is only in a manner of speaking. It is not literal, direct appointment such as described of the Old Testament prophets. But JW leaders deliberately confuse the two concepts, hoping -- and mostly succeeding -- to convince their followers that they themselves are quasi-inspired prophets who speak in God's name. Since they are admittedly not inspired, they do not speak in God's name, and so they are false prophets. They are also false prophets in the sense that anyone who claims to speak in the name of a god is a prophet by definition. Thus, such prophets who teach falsehoods of any sort are false prophets. The rest of your post is a standard whitewash of the JW organization. But this organization demonstrably teaches all manner of falsehoods, and so is a false teacher and false prophet. As for the JW preaching work, hardly anyone takes notice. Ask most anyone walking down the street, "What do you think of the message JWs preach?" The answer is usually along the lines of "What message? Aren't they the loons who don't take blood transfusions?" As for the size of the JW community and its influence on the world, its 'unity' and so forth, note that the worldwide loose group known as Pentecostals has grown from virtually zero size 120 years ago to upwards of 300 million today. They are strongly united in many ways -- just not the same way JWs are united. For the most part, both Pentecostals and JWs as individuals are highly brainwashed by their cultish leaders.
  14. Anna said: Exactly. I guarantee you that in my extended family, an uncle who was known to have done that to one of my female cousins would have become a pariah. I suspect that this was many years ago, when such things were often shrugged off by most everyone. When my mother, a real hottie, was about 16, a prominent Watchtower official molested her in the sense that he touched her breasts, bottom and other private parts. She was horribly naive and didn't think of it as sexual molestation, but only as uncomfortable. She didn't tell anyone until she was in her late 60s. Do you think she was molested or not? Then in my reply to you I said: I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen. I mentioned that elsewhere too. No one thinks child sexual molestation is ok. Except for molesters like Greenlees. And enablers like certain elders and GB members who make or enforce policies whose result is covering over the crimes. We know that molesters are never really cured, just stopped or slowed down. So yes, it's likely he would have gone on to bigger and better things. Very likely. Many years ago, yes, that's how these things were perceived by most people. All good points, but that have nothing to do with Leo Greenlees, because no one aside from those he molested (like Mark Palo) were aware of his perversion. Not just 'appears' -- it IS that way. Through at least the late 1980s it was unofficially stated but strongly enforced Watchtower policy that "keeping Jehovah's name spotless" was above all other goals in handling judicial and other matters. "Jehovah's name" was deliberately conflated with "the Watchtower Society's reputation". Thus, elders' prime goal was usually to keep all sordid situations under wraps. Hundreds of examples of this have been reported in various public and private media. Good points! Tolerance is a form of enabling, which in some cases is even worse than the crime.
  15. TrueTomHarley said: Yet you're unable to show that it's ridiculous. All you can manage is an unevidenced denial of what I said. On the other hand, in earlier posts in the now-chopped-up thread, I've set forth detailed reasons why it is so. And in no case has anyone shown why the reasoning is wrong. That's right, and again not a single JW apologist has refuted that. In fact, only one (Arauna) even tried, and her 'reasoning' was completely lame, and I proved it false. To recap: *********************** The Bible says God is loving; 'creation' says the Creator is not loving. The Bible says God knows all; so God knows when parts of 'creation' are not acting lovingly toward other parts. God sees this and approves, because he created it to be so. Reality cannot contradict itself. Hence, either the Bible is wrong that God is loving, or the evidence from 'creation' that says the Creator is not loving is wrong. The half-billion-year-old fossil record of 'creation' is fully established as scientific fact. Hence the Bible's claim that its God is loving is false. Hence, either the Bible is false, or God does not exist, or both. QED. *********************** Look at the videos below of leopards eating live warthogs and tell me that leopards act lovingly toward warthogs:
      Hello guest!
      Hello guest!
    A handful of especially stupid apologists will claim that leopard behavior is a product of "man's sin" or even that Satan created such things. But they forget that these things began occurring half a billion years before man or Satan came to exist 6,000 years ago (according to the Watchtower Society). Note that the above reasoning in no way argues that some sort of creator does not exist -- only that such a creator is not loving. Ok now, Einstein: show why the above logic is wrong. Put up or shut up.
  16. TrueTomHarley said: I think you're so blinded by your Watchtower blinders that you don't see your comments for what they are -- abhorrent to anyone with moral decency. Note this one: << And sometimes you wish that there was more differerentiation in “molestation.” At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.” None of those actions are great, of course, but there is a substantial difference between them. >> As Anna explained, in principle there is no difference between "a hand on the inner thigh or rear end" and outright rape. All are violations of law, and of New Testament principles for sexual misconduct, and all are forms of molestation -- despite your protests to the contrary. The 'minor' violations, if not checked, inevitably lead to major violations. Your obvious attempt to minimize some forms of molestation is saying exactly, "Molestation is no big deal!" That's exactly what JW leaders have always done, and continue to do, and is why they're in such trouble with the Law and molestation victims. I think you need to go back to square one on what constitutes morality. Coming from someone with a demonstrably defective moral sense and little critical thinking ability, that's rich!
  17. Anna said: Very good! But the Watchtower Society claims that Greenlees, other GB members and all elders are appointed by God, thus contradicting the fact that Greenlees was not. If Greenlees was not, then the rest were not either. This is simple logic. Why do you refuse to accept it? The point is that the mere claim that one is following the directions in the Bible in no way means that one is actually following those directions. The proof is in the pudding, and the JW organization's 'pudding' proves that it often does not follow the directions. Hence it is not what it claims: God's earthly representative. Deliberately missing the point again. The point is that, despite the Pope's and many other leaders of 'Christendom's' claims to be appointed to their positions by God, and to speak for God, you and all other JWs reject those claims. Why? Because according to your beliefs, despite their claims, they are not doing God's will according to the Bible. Once again the point here is that old Tom, Dick and Harry can claim to be doing God's will, but that claim in no way means that they are actually doing God's will. Their actions prove or disprove it.
  18. Look beneath the surface, Anna. Your last post was excellent and well describes the attitude shown by TTH and so many elders, including and especially the Governing Body. "We abhor child molestation! But not as much as we abhor public exposure of anything that makes us look bad."
  19. It can't get any clearer: "LIsten to Jehovah's voice!" is a direct claim to inspiration by the Governing Body.
  20. It's exactly the attitude TTH displays here -- "Oh, molestation is no big deal!" -- that has gotten JW leaders in deep doo doo, and is the source of the extreme disgust about them shown by so many people.
  21. Arauna said: I see no such "aptitude" in your acceptance of a mishmosh creationist ideas from various sources. Nor in your refusal to name the sources you rely on. Nor in your refusal to read real science books. LOL! Some people think Newton and Einstein were loons. How long ago? 1945? And what were his reasons? My guess is that you completely misunderstood much of what he said. I certainly did: the half-life of U-238 is 4.5 billion years. The fact that you don't recognize that as an answer proves that you don't understand even such simple things in science. So let me try to educate you. "Half-life" refers to the fact that all radioactive materials decay at a fixed rate such that after a period of time called the "half-life", one half of the original material is left (
      Hello guest!
    ). Thus uranium-238 decays ultimately into lead-206 (do you even know what those numbers mean?) through a long chain of other radioactive decays (
      Hello guest!
    ). Thus, if the age of the earth is 4.55 billion years, however much U-238 it had at its beginning has lost a bit more than half of its mass as it decayed into lead-206. "One half" is a good deal bigger than "none", wouldn't you say? Now consider that all elements heavier than lithium (number 3 in the periodic table) are synthesized in supernova explosions. According to cosmologists the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. That's about 3 half-lives of U-238. Thus the original amount of U-238 in the universe would have decayed to about 1/8 as much. But elements are constantly being synthesized in the supernovas that occur in the universe all the time, and so U-238 is always being created. Nope. As I've told you several times, that's pure young-earth creationist claptrap -- "flood geology". A careful examination of sediment layers does not show virtually instantaneous deposition, but usually a relatively slow accumulation of stuff followed by periods of no deposition, or even erosion. For example, in the Grand Canyon region there are hundreds of sediment layers now turned to stone. Many layers show evidence that, at some point, deposition stopped, the shallow sea level dropped and/or the land rose, and eroson occurred, sometimes of an unknown number of turned-to-stone lower layers, leaving erosional products such as cliffs, stream beds and cobbles in those beds. For example, the Grand Canyon itself contains nearly 40 layers of sedimentary rock on top of the lowest Precambrian rocks (
      Hello guest!
    ), ranging in age from 200 million to 600 million for the sediments, and about 2 billion years old for the Precambrian basement rocks. There are some 14 unconformities (gaps) between these layers. During one ancient period of deposition, limestone accumulated in a layer that is now called the Muav Limestone, followed by deep burial for an unknown time period. Eventually this layer was exposed due to uplift of the land, and an unknown amount of the top layers were eroded away, leaving a surface cut by many erosion channels. Later, a different kind of limestone was deposited on top of all this, forming the Temple Butte layer. Roughly 65 million years of sedimentation were eroded away between these two layers. Eventually erosion stopped again for an unknown time, then another layer of limestone was desposited on top, called the Redwall Limestone. The process repeated many times. All manner of fossil animals and plants are found in these layers, including burrows and trackways of footprints. This is impossible in a huge flood lasting a few weeks. Near Denver, Colorado is an exposure of sedimentary rock that is tilted at a steep angle and was eroded partly away during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains. It is now a city park. Some of the individual layers in this exposure contain dinosaur footprints and trackways. There is no way dinosaurs left footprints there during Noah's Flood. The layers contain plenty of fossil animals, too. The region north of the Grand Canyon is called The Grand Staircase (
      Hello guest!
    ) because as one travels north from the Grand Canyon, one sees cliff after cliff in the sedimentary layers that are piled on top of one another. Various dating methods show that the higher the layer, the younger it is. The topmost sediments in Bryce Canyon are about 40 million years old. The whole assemblage is about 3,000 meters thick. It's thoroughly explained, not explained away. Once again, your claims are purely those of young-earth creationist "flood geology" -- which even the Watchtower Society abandoned 40 years ago. Why do you cling to this nonsense? I've explained this to you several times now: the "Cambrian explosion" lasted 20 million to 140 million years, depending on how it's defined. That is in no way an "explosion". I already explained all this to you. Certain early dinosaurs called theropods appeared at least 180 million years ago, which looked an awful lot like birds, and had feathers. Eventually primitive birds appeared about 150 million years ago. Archaeopteryx is the first known "true bird", but it was a true "intermediate" in the sense of having bird-like and dinosaur-like features. This critter was so much like the contemporary small dinosaurs like Compsognathus that two specimens were identified as such and spent a hundred years in museum drawers until the 1970s. Don't you learn? There are plenty of such things. I've given you links to descriptions of them. You simply refuse to learn anything. Of course it does. Once again, read a good book on paleontology and evolution, like Donald Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters. Why do you continue to refuse to educate yourself?
  22. God temporarily gave them permission to fly.
  23. I agree that some people can't help themselves when it comes to lying. The Watchtower Writing Staff in particular.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.