So, 'similar' appearances drives your ideas on what is related? Just look at its anatomy, for starters, they are quite different. The Micro-raptor could be an ancestry of our modern birds, but they are dinosaurs, apart from feathers, there is little resemblance.
You are partially correct. I do believe in "evolution" in the sense that animals can (and will) adapt, and thatsmall genetic variations are common (such as different eye colors and different breeds). However, it is quite improbable that an animal would transform into an entirely different animal (Yes, I am saying impossible). Mutations have never been observed benefiting the organism, only harming or not damaging it.
Also, you brought up the question, "how did birds get feathers in the first place?" Well, it's quite simple: they were created that way.
I hope you don't mind me asking, but how (or why) did the dinosaur's ancestors develop feathers, with no immediate need for them? You reach the same roadblock.
Also, your comment about the fossils... I see what you mean. The feather patterns may have been lost, but with all of the fossils of raptor dinosaurs, I would expect to see more evidence then that.
((Sorry Gertrude, we'll be done very soon.))
Again, why do you say 'transformed into an entirely different animal'? And on the contrary, the human mutation for blue eyes was very helpful: in colder climates, with longer winters, light eyes were able to take in more light.
Oh, do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? I'm not going to debate with you on your 'they were created that way' answer to lives mysteries, though I find it quite odd that people as smart as you, could instead of finding the answers (we have already traced the origin of the universe back to the beginning, The Big Bang.), just fall back on an archaic belief that, as all religions are, was made to explain what they couldn't explain. Until now.
There are no roadblocks when it comes to science. Dinosaurs had what are sometimes referred to as “proto-feathers”, they are not the modern, highly developed feathers that you see on birds today. They were covered in a thin layer of down, sometimes referred to as "Dino-fuzz", that was made up of protein fibers, just as feathers are. They had this Dino-fuzz as means of insulation.
I'm not saying, in any way that I am a leading expert on dinosaurs, or any prehistoric animals. But I do my due diligence, and I've gone through many a course on everything from anthropology to religions of the world.[/QUOTE]
(Yes. I will provide these answers, then I'm finished!)
I say 'transformed' because evolutionists have concluded that one animal will slowly develop into another creature over a long period of time, (Such as single-celled organisms becoming humans, over millions of years). That kind of transformation, even over an immense amount of time, is just not genetically possible. And ask yourself, how did anything, anything at all, come from
absolutely nothing? You might say that it came from mass energy, but how can there be any kind of energy, when there is nothing?
Yes, I agree that blue eyes are quite helpful in some situations, and it also did not just randomly happen. The first two humans would have had the genetic capability to produce any combination of skin, eye, and hair color within the next generation.
Yes, I do believe that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old. I also do not believe this blindly. I investigate the possibilities of what could have happened, then I decide what has the most evidence behind it. For example: dinosaur fossils being found with intact soft tissue, even red blood cells. I cannot find any logical way that evolution can explain that.
Another testimony to the young earth viewpoint is the ocean. If the earth was truly billions of years old, the ocean would be far to salty to support any form of life. The reason for this is that the ocean has no water outlet. As I am sure you know, a salty body of water forms when the water has nowhere to go (as the ocean does). The water in the stagnant body begins to evaporate, leaving the salt behind and creating a salty body of water (The Great Salt Lake is an example). If this had been occurring in the oceans for billions of years, it would be much saltier than it is currently.
To answer your comment about proto-feathers, I hope that you do not mind me using a quote:
"Evolutionists have been unable to document evolutionary progression in feather morphology over time, despite their insistence that filaments like these were the evolutionary prototypes of actual feathers. Sciurumimus has the same simple filaments we’ve heard about before. None of the complex anatomy seen in feathers nor even any feather follicles have been found. The authors point to “vertical skin structures that might represent follicles,” and in their journal article they sketch an “interpretative drawing showing possible follicles” (emphases ours), but they actually found none.
And why do the authors think these unidentified skin structures “might represent follicles”? They explain, “The only comparable structures in the avian skin are the follicles associated with the feathers, so we tentatively suggest that these structures might represent follicles.” In other words, birds have follicles, and because these evolutionists are sure that birds evolved from dinosaurs, these must be follicles. The authors even describe their findings as “filamentous plumage.” But as anatomist Dr. David Menton, who details the incredible design of actual feathers in his DVD Formed to Fly, comments, “Filaments are not feathers. But evolutionists want to see feathers, so they see feathers.”
I told Gertrude that this would be my last post on the subject, so I just want to close with this:
My overall goal for this was not to prove anyone right or wrong, but to provide both sides of the issue.
I apologize if I offended anyone in any way, and I hope that our conversation was handled in the right way.
Do you think there's anything else I need to add or is it ready to go?
