Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
101 bytes added ,  23:11, March 20, 2007
→‎Creationist Scientists Perspective: SYSOPS do not unlock the page until a compromise is reaced. see talk page
Line 32: Line 32:     
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
 
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
−
"The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers'''...." <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp</ref><ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF</ref>
+
"Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers'''...." <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp</ref><ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF</ref>
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
   Line 52: Line 52:  
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] obviously does not use the word "dinosaur."  However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]]  and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp "Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?"], ''TJ'' 15(2):42–45, August 2001</ref>  <ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm</ref>, although some reject this view, saying that behemoth was a hippopotamus and leviathan was a crocodile. There is a problem with this view, however, such as the fact that a hippo doesn't have a "tail like a cedar" and a crocodile does not accurately match the description of leviathan.
 
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] obviously does not use the word "dinosaur."  However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]]  and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp "Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?"], ''TJ'' 15(2):42–45, August 2001</ref>  <ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm</ref>, although some reject this view, saying that behemoth was a hippopotamus and leviathan was a crocodile. There is a problem with this view, however, such as the fact that a hippo doesn't have a "tail like a cedar" and a crocodile does not accurately match the description of leviathan.
   −
   
==Evolutionary Scientists Perspective==
 
==Evolutionary Scientists Perspective==
  
Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,411

edits

Navigation menu