Sean Pitman: And, true bird fossils have been found in Triassic …

Comment on Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit by Eddie.

Sean Pitman: And, true bird fossils have been found in Triassic deposits in Texas – along with bird footprints in Triassic sediments in Argentina.

I would like to believe Chatterjee’s claims that Protoavis represents a bird more modern than Archaeopteryx, but his claims are not well accepted among paleontologists, and even if Protoavis was a bird it still has several reptile-like traits. I would also like to believe the Triassic footprints were made by birds, but the authors of the study concluded they were made made by an unknown theropod dinosaur with a reversible hallux–based on the assumption that birds did not exist at the time.

In any event, how do you explain the presence of birds with reptilian-like traits (teeth, long bony tails, clawed forelimbs, etc.) occurring earlier in the fossil record than more modern birds, just as predicted by evolutionists? I can understand why people examining the evidence objectively would interpret early bird-like fossils as support for megaevolution. Those who do so should be respected for their interpretations (and not ridiculed repeatedly by a certain individual here who erroneously thinks evolutionists believe that birds evolved from lizards). I have a hard time understanding how anybody could interpret the early fossil record of any vertebrate class as overwhelmingly supporting the Biblical account of origins.

Eddie Also Commented

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit

Holly Pham: One of the things that has always concerned me is that, according to what I’ve read, birds and reptiles have completely different forms of respiratory systems (flow-through vs. bellows) How is this explained by evolutionists?

Evidence from the vertebrae of non-avian theropod dinosaurs suggests that they, too, possessed unidirectional flow-through ventilation of the lungs. So, according to evolutionary theory, it evolved first in “primitive” non-avian theropods rather than in birds, and comprises one of many shared derived characters supposedly linking birds with more “advanced” theropods. However, I don’t think there is any evidence or even a hypothesis for a step-by-step process of HOW it evolved. Here is a reference:

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Bob Helm: Bob, if you send me an e-mail at I will send you a pdf file of a 1991 article published by Chatterjee in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 332:277-342, titled “Cranial anatomy and relationships of a new Triassic bird from Texas.”

Curiously his description is based only on cranial anatomy. I don’t think he ever published an analysis of its postcranial anatomy.

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit

David Read: Eddie, ecological zonation will yield the same basic order that you’re pointing to: invertebrates appear before vertebrates; fish appear before amphibians; amphibians appear before reptiles; reptiles appear before mammals; reptiles appear before birds, etc.

It could, and it’s the best creationist explanation, but it doesn’t explain why flowering plants were absent from lowland forests. Or why so many land plants appeared before mangroves, which today occur strictly in the intertidal zone. Or why no pre-flood humans have been found. Or, if Sean is correct that the flood ended at the K-T boundary, why many modern groups of birds and mammals (including marine mammals) which first appear during the Tertiary were not buried by the flood.

David Read: The fact that something appears before something else in the fossil record is not proof than anything evolved into anything else.


David Read: You seem to be complaining that God has not made the fossil evidence compulsory, i.e., so clear that no reasonable person can possibly doubt it. And if God hasn’t made the evidence skeptic-proof, then the skeptic is God’s fault, God is responsible for the skeptic.

I’m not complaining. I’m merely pointing out that the evidence can be interpreted in different ways by honest people. And I’m relieved to see that even you don’t think the evidence is crystal clear.

David Read: Only people of faith can be saved, that is, only people who are willing to trust God and put away doubts can be saved.

I agree.

Recent Comments by Eddie

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

SDA Bio Prof: The Bible makes multiple falsifiable prophecies about Nebuchadnezzar conquering Egypt, yet history never records it happening. Does this mean the Bible is effectively falsified?

Sean Pitman: Egyptians had a strong tendency not to record their losses… only their victories.

Sean, does that mean YOU personally believe Babylon conquered Egypt, just as predicted by two prophets? In the absence of any empirical evidence? If the Egyptians didn’t record their losses, why wouldn’t the Babylonians have recorded such a stunning victory?

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

Stephen Ferguson: Sean, how did we get to this position? In particular, why after spending decades and millions of dollars has the official Church’s own pet organisation, the Geoscience Research Institute, done so little to disprove evolution?

Why if it is all hogwash has it been thoroughly not been disproved over the last 150 years? Why do some 99% of scientists across a multitude of different fields (e.g. paleontologists, physicists, archaeologists, anthropologists, biologists, chemists, cosmologists, historians, cosmologists and geologists etc) all consider evolution to be the most plausible model?

Maybe because the evidence for microevolution and speciation is overwhelming. And some evidence for megaevolution (e.g., sequence of fossils) and long geological ages can be perplexing to explain from the perspective of most (but not all) young life and young earth creationists.

Stephen Ferguson: Why, if it is all rubbish, is there Adventist scientists and theologians who believe in evolution? Why would they risk their careers and standing in the Church to promote something they consider truth, given the huge pressure to just shut up, if they didn’t believe there was something in it?

Maybe because they’re not as honest as some prominent supporters here. Or their faith is weaker. Or, perhaps, physicians and lawyers are simply better trained than scientists and theologians to evaluate scientific evidence.

Stephen Ferguson: I really, really hope Christian scientists, especially Adventist ones, will disprove evolution some day.

Me too.

Stephen Ferguson: If the SDA hierarchy wants someone to blame for all this, they should blame themselves. It has been their pet organisations that have so spectacularly failed to offer scientific arguments in favour of YEC. Ted Wilson must accept some of the blame onto himself – if not personally then on behalf of the hierachy he leads.

I wouldn’t blame anybody. But if they were to fire the current GRI staff, hire certain supporters here, and then move GRI from LLU to SAU or SWAU, I suspect a certain faction of the church would be happier.

Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull

David Read: Randal Wisbey was still thinking that he could control the situation. His way of controlling the situation was to cut off all channels of communication except through him. The biology faculty was not to talk to anyone except him, and the Board of Trustees was not to talk to anyone but him, including the NAD and the biology faculty. He was hoping to just ride out the storm without really doing anything about the problem. He’s never taken one positive, concrete step to address the problem.

So you’ve heard Lee Greer’s side of the story, but these are not Lee’s words. What is your source of information for Wisbey’s thoughts?

Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull

David Read: When Lee Greer agreed to teach creation (even though he personally is not a creationist) he was fired for it. Yup, that’s right. For moving just a little bit in the direction of compromise with the SDA Church, Lee Greer was fired. That’s how entrenched is LSU’s rebellion against, and hatred for, the SDA Church.

What is the evidence for this statement? It is a very strong allegation–and slanderous if it happens to be untrue.

La Sierra University Responds to anti-Creation Bond Issue
Maybe he isn’t hated as much as you think. Just because somebody disagrees with one or a few of his positions doesn’t necessarily mean that the person “hates” him. I happen to disagree with his position on women’s ordination, but I still think he’s a fabulous preacher with a cogent message and I certainly agree with most of his beliefs. It’s unwise to reject a messenger just because there is one message or a few that you don’t like.