Development of birds?
My friend copy-paste responded to my facebook post with 10 reason against evolution
I just posted up one to save you guys from the 9 other terrible argument he represented. I asked for some help in counterarguments for a school research paper he posted this and then sent me a IM saying he " raped my theory in the a** " (my, lol). i said i didnt have time to argue and he said i had no argument. 'God save him', So ignorantly stubborn, it damn near pissed me off.
But really my post has nothing to do with this event, no, i just need a reliable answer. I wanted to ask how birds simply came to be, like pterodactyl and other flying (reptile?) dinosaur birds and such and then post-dinosaurian ( i like to make words up) era birds ( not really present day birds).? I have my own ideas i just want a wisdom wizard to explain this better than i could.
Heres his 'fact' (lol) its a bit amusing and funny. I seriously saved you from the 9 other arguments:
Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the... quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more
consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have
many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began
to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by
evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in
his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why
would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the
evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in
order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size
wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird
continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless?
The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most
adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a
severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According
to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest
useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in
the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds
could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so
funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying
around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to
help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was
developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.
I just posted up one to save you guys from the 9 other terrible argument he represented. I asked for some help in counterarguments for a school research paper he posted this and then sent me a IM saying he " raped my theory in the a** " (my, lol). i said i didnt have time to argue and he said i had no argument. 'God save him', So ignorantly stubborn, it damn near pissed me off.
But really my post has nothing to do with this event, no, i just need a reliable answer. I wanted to ask how birds simply came to be, like pterodactyl and other flying (reptile?) dinosaur birds and such and then post-dinosaurian ( i like to make words up) era birds ( not really present day birds).? I have my own ideas i just want a wisdom wizard to explain this better than i could.
Heres his 'fact' (lol) its a bit amusing and funny. I seriously saved you from the 9 other arguments:
Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the... quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more
consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have
many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began
to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by
evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in
his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why
would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the
evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in
order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size
wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird
continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless?
The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most
adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a
severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According
to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest
useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in
the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds
could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so
funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying
around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to
help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was
developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.
What's new today
Forum
We cannot think like our ancestors
Started by Matt Giwer in Philosophy. Last reply by Unseen 10 minutes ago. 22 Replies 1 Like
Blog Posts
How Jesus' Views on Marriage Proves Yahweh's Laws are NOT Absolute OR Jesus is Mistaken
Posted by Cathy Cooper on May 17, 2013 at 10:00am 3 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
