Science is not religion, it doesn't offer virtue

I’m not accepting definitions from Young-Earth creationists. They fall apart with the barest scrutiny.

There are “operational” components to estimating the age of the Earth; Geology, radiation decay, study of craters and the moon samples.

Secondly, there are “operational” components to Evolution; we can turn on ancient genes in animals from their long dead ancestors.

There’s no reason for those genes to be there, unless they’re related. And Evolutionary theory predicted those genes would be there.

Young earth creationism is just an excuse for bad theology. Presuming they understood what the Bible described, instead of trying to alter their interpretation to meet the evidence.

color me surprised. LOLOL They call your attitude closed mindedness.

got a link for that?

I don’t trust categories that are agenda-driven.

This is no different than the Left calling long rifles “Assault weapons”

It makes no indigenous sense to the people who use those weapons or the industry. It’s a made up term to push an agenda.

Similarly, the Young creationists categories, make no sense when you actually examine the science being done.

There does exist a separation between Experimentalists and Theorists. But no science falls into one or the other. It always has both.

Thus, calling a science “unoperational”, is just a farce. A made up terminology, meant to push an agenda.

And in your world, the gene that was “altered” simply could NOT have been a gene present in early chickens, huh? It MUST have been present in your phantom “dinosaurs” that “evolved” into chickens.

Why would a chicken and long dead dinosaur have the same gene that produces the same bones, when chickens don’t use them?

Too much of a coincidence.

And btw Early Chickens = Dinosaurs.

By definition, all birds are dinosaurs. Just like Crocodiles.

Where have you seen a “gene” from a long-dead dinosaur? At least TRY to sound like you know what you’re talking about.

BS. What the story says is that scientists EXTRAPOLATED the genomes of turtles and birds and ASSUMED that they were both related to dinosaurs.

They have the genomes of Birds and Turtles, they didn’t “EXTRAPOLATE” them, they used those two to then extrapolate the genome of the dinosaur.

And the logic is pretty simple; We know which genes create aspects of a creature. If you find that same aspect on a dinosaur, and it’s clear in their lineage that these two are related, you know that gene goes back to them.

And btw: we also know how to pick out how old genes are. We know the genes we’re looking at, are old enough to have been around in the time of the dinosaurs.

The trouble for you still remains; what’s a gene that the Chicken doesn’t use; to create legs we do see on dinosaurs, doing in the Chicken’s genome?

A gene older than the Chicken itself?

LOL. That’s what I SAID. You (and the “scientists”) extrapolated the bird and turtle genes to be holdovers from the dinosaurs. We don’t HAVE dinosaur genes available to us for comparison, regardless of how many Jurassic Park sequels come along. No one knows how old any specific gene is…period. They can surmise its age but they have no ACTUAL ancient genes with which to compare it.

Yes we do:

Admit it Dave: you should have looked that up before commenting.

Laziness gets you no where. Period.

Again, I call BS. Humans are still here. Dinosaurs AREN’T…or maybe you missed that little fact.

And we’ve detected genes in our genome that are older than humans.

So you were wrong Dave. You can’t deny it. Not only can we take the age of genes, we know how old genes are down to the individual person or animal.

And you still can’t explain why a gene that produces the same bone we see in a Dinosaur, is in a Chicken. The two being related makes perfect sense.

LOL predictable.

why is it do you suppose that dinosaur-bird evolutionists hold onto this theory. Well. There are a lot of reputations at stake here. and opinions.

Yes you were. B)

Wow, your source did not read the article they were quoting from:

There are some similarities between birds and dinosaurs, and it is possible, they said, that birds and dinosaurs may have shared a common ancestor, such as the small, reptilian “thecodonts,” which may then have evolved on separate evolutionary paths into birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs

No attention to detail apparently.

Still, there’s one word I have to say:

Archaeopteryx

A warmblooded lizard, with feathers and wings.
With >250 skeletal similarities to birds, that no other species has with them.

But whether it’s this dinosaur, or an ancestor of a dinosaur; it’s the same thing. Common origin. They’re related.

… And still no explanation from you or Dave for why those old lizard genes are in the Chicken.
Because you don’t have one. B)

apparently you did not read it. possible. NOT science. It’s origins science which means scientists can make up any thing they want. and that’s exactly what they do.

You have theory…on all this evolution stuff. none of you were there…it’s all guess and when you lie about it and make it all fantasy exciting for youth and childish adults… it hurts science and ultimately the atheistic scientists integrity. This is why it is called origins science and not observational science. Most people don’t know the difference. They hear the term ‘science’ used and they believe you. To their detriment.

BS again! HOW do we know that anything in our genome is “older than humans?” Why isn’t it merely that we have the same gene as something YOU think is “older than humans” but for a different purpose? Just like that bone in a chicken’s leg may be for an entirely different purpose than the one someone found in a dinosaur’s fossil.