The Evolution of Flight.... why are some birds grounded?

well if you assume I believe the universe just "happened" then you think I am an atheist. that goes for all evolutionist.(not all believe there isn't a God actually very few are atheist) I ask again do you not care about this or anything else the Goes against the creator in the bible? Or are you blinded by faith? You my friend seem to be closed minded.... Tell me what research did you do that proves the bible true? I would like to do it(if its read the bible I have read through both the King James and catholic Bibles and if you say faith you are simply saying I believe the bible to be true because I believe it to be true)

Evo's, do you actually believe that flight evolved from running? Many animals evolved running adaptations and none ended up flying or gliding (with the exception of flying fish). On the other hand, a top-down origin of flight seems more plausible. Wings would be more useful as parachutes than balancing F1 fins.

there is no clear cut way to know how flight evolved however am pretty sure it happend(nothing is certain) But not knowing doesn't disprove piles of evidence.. as for the bible it has lets see....... 0? evidence to back it up[This message has been edited by DC85, 09-24-2003]

Just because something cannot be proven does not mean it didnt happen. This goes for the bible and evolution. I believe in the bible, and the bible has no place for evolution so I do not believe evolution.And for the bible having no evidence, Many people writing about the same thing from all over the world in different times. They all dreamed it up?

But, if something can be proven, it probably did happen. The fossil record largely proves that evolution did occur, and continuing studies prove that it does occur. If you can't reconcile the Bible and evolution, well, that's your problem, but personally, in the face of competing views, I throw out the one with the least evidence. That would be the Bible. No, they just copied from each other. After all the Bible wasn't written all at once by a bunch of different authors. And they weren't "all over the world", they were in one little corner of it. The internal consistency of the Bible may be strange to you, but even the Star Wars books are as internally consistent and authored by as many (or more) people, and we don't go saying that the Star Wars books are true just because they all agree with each other.Anyway what does this have to do with birds?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-24-2003]

"But, if something can be proven, it probably did happen. The fossil record largely proves that evolution did occur, and continuing studies prove that it does occur. "Heres the thing, you look on creation sites, evolution sites. Both have different explanations for same thing. Who to believe?"If you can't reconcile the Bible and evolution, well, that's your problem, but personally, in the face of competing views, I throw out the one with the least evidence. That would be the Bible."People saying it happened is evidence."No, they just copied from each other."Thats your hypothesis, cant be validated.Many parts of the bible CAN be proven by historical data, basically the only part people disbelieve is Genesis. If other parts of the bible are true, why not genesis? People think it isnt true because it is hard to believe for the skeptic who wants tangible proof.

A great question! Basically, you have to look at the methodology. It's a major tenant of science that the methodology is always transparent - you not only know what conclusions the scientists came to, but the methods they used to reach them, because all that is published in the paper. Creationists do not often refer to their methodology, but when they do, it's generally something on the order of "The Bible must be assumed to be inerrant, so any evidence we find against the Bible can be automatically rejected.Scientists let the data dictate their models. Creationists use their models to decide which data to ignore. Who do you think is more trustworthy? What people? If you're talking about the authors of the Bible, we know they weren't there to observe the events they say happened. Right there that makes their claims pretty suspect.Anyway, people lie. What people say can't be taken as evidence - you'll note that even in courts of law what people say - "hearsay" - isn't admissable as evidence. If one author makes a mistake, and another, later author makes the very same mistake, then I'd say that's evidence that the later one copied from the earlier one, for instance. What about the Exodus? After all the Egyptians kept pretty good records, and they never mention either keeping Hebrew slaves or their departure. And the loss of most of their workforce, as it says in the Bible, would be something they would have noticed, don't you think?

Where on earth did you get the assumption that scientists believe that flight was developed from running? That's an awful proposition for the development of flight - flight requires lightweight organisms, while fast runners tend to be bulky. Flight is believed to have come from tree and cliff dwellers - it came from jumping. And there are many intermediaries stages currently alive on this front.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This topic pegged the "activity meter" in just 4 hours. Time to give it a rest, and let anyone who wishs, a chance to catch up on reading it.Temporarily closing it down.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Reopened.AM

quote:

---

quote:

---

Many parts of the bible CAN be proven by historical data, basically the only part people disbelieve is Genesis.

---

What about the Exodus? After all the Egyptians kept pretty good records, and they never mention either keeping Hebrew slaves or their departure. And the loss of most of their workforce, as it says in the Bible, would be something they would have noticed, don't you think?

---

... and Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles (mostly a retelling), etc... Not to mention Esther (the Persians kept pretty good records too - especially of their royalty!). They're still trying to find *something* anywhere in history that mentions King David and King Solomon in a contemporary context (you'd think a kingdom that was given 25 tons of gold per year - excluding tribute from all of the middle east - would draw *some* notice! )(oh yeah... this is supposed to be about wings, right?)------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-26-2003]

WHAT IS THE TOPIC???AM

there are flying fish, flying squirrels and a flying snake!

"Ground up" is not completely dead - some birds do use their wings to help running. But last I heard "trees down" definitely had the edge (microraptor gui is pretty good evidence for that hypothesis).

Andya, If flight/gliding can evolve from swimming (!!!) what is your incredulity based upon that rules out gliding from running?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."