Subduction Zone. Have I missed your reply. Are you unable to futher justify your homolgy here?<quoted text>
Oh very scientific...NOT!
Ruben suggests dinosaurs and birds have a common ancestor, meaning the common ancestor was not a dinosaur or a bird, but a glider of some sort.
If you are still stuggling and refuse to digest that some researchers disagree with the dino to bird theory then you are the one that is ignorant, not I. That is the point and you may struggle as much as you wish and get your jollies and that will still be factual. Rhuben took differences into account. That made all the difference!
Evolutionists look for similarities.
I look for differences.
There are many similarites amongst many organisms even those not closely related. These get evolutionary terms such as convergent evolution and morphological and genetic homoplasy.
When one needs to describe why a bear is not a dog, a dog is not a cat, a chimp is not a human, a whale is not a shark we do not discern them apart by the similarities. To do so would be illogical. We are more inclined to speak to the differences because these will more clearly differentiate one from another.
Evolutionists prefer to ignore the differences and look for the most ridiculously misguided similarities. Can anyone tell me why? A no brainer, really.
A bird has a reversed hallux, the thigh bone is largely fixed in place, birds are cold blooded not warm which is a big difference, birds have hollow bones, birds do not have teeth.
So although I only need only one trait, a reversed hallux, there are more differences.
Because I am not scratching around grabbing at any straw I can find to it appears that I have a heck of a lot less problems and convoluted scenarios than evos that are classifying by similarity.
You now have a bush that evos are so fed up with it I reckon that's why they want to be even vaguer and use cladistics.
Evolutionists are often silly enough to try and manipulate creationists into defining evolutionary terms. It is a sneaky way of giving their terms some validation.
Hence although evos speak in terms of derived and primative traits they are going to find more similarities to one species than another. That is inevitable. The inevitable does not demonstrate anything apart from desperation.
The point still remains that the modern bird footprints 212myo display the distinguishing feature of a bird, a reversed hallux. Evolutionists can squirm, and invent weird handed monsters or mythical theropods and still the simplest explanation is that they are just what they appear to be. Evolutionists simply will not take the data for what it is, as usual, and have to get out all their convolutions to explain it.
At least I can accept the data on the deteriorating genome as it stands, predict all dna and organs will be functional and be validated, and am clear what is or is not a bird.
So my 6 points still stand. No support or interpretation of DATA I present could possibly be worse, or more ridiculously complicated, than what evolutionists have on offer.
I'd like to now throw the icing on the cake, which I generally like to save for latter.
Wiki has pictures of several Furcula (Wishbone) from theropods and of birds.
So here, something more the shape of a boomerang is 'the same' thing as a bone that is U shaped. None of them, including Arch, looks like a bird wishbone at all, except for Columba perhaps.
At least a couple of you have a bit of a go, finally. So thanks.
My 6 points in support of creation are robust. Data on the deteriorating genome, negative epistasis, can be accepted without the need for complicating scenarios. Predictions made well in advance are being substantiated.
Nothing I present could be worse and more complicated than what you have to offer and I actually think creationism has the upper hand overall.