Creation

This answer is rather contentious because there are views from both Evolutionists and Creationists on this issue. Without prejudice to who is correct, since Evolutionists make the claim that such a transformation occurred, the Evolutionist Perspective will come first, followed by the Creationist Perspective.

Evolutionist Views:

Answer 1

Fossils have been found showing that several species of ornithischian ("bird-hipped") dinosaurs grew feathers for warmth, although they could not fly. The most recently discovered of these, a pigeon-sized feathered dinosaur named Epidexipteryx hui, had four prominent tail feathers apparently used for display, either to attract a mate or to intimidate rivals. So, bird-hipped dinosaurs were clearly a step in the evolution of birds.

A few million years later than Epidexipteryx hui came Archaeopterix, a bird that still had some dinosaur features. So, the evolution of birds from dinosaurs may have needed millions of years to happen, but it happened.

Answer 2

By Evolution and Mutation. "Research since the 1970s indicates that theropod dinosaurs are most likely the ancestors of birds; in fact, most paleontologists regard birds as the only surviving dinosaurs and some believe dinosaurs and birds should be put together under one biological class."

Answer 3

Adaptations in the skeletons of theropod dinosaurs that gave them advantages in balance and quickness in capturing prey were combined with the development of insulating feathers that may also have assisted in mate displaying, to form the basics of a wing. With the evolution of the tuft of specialized feathers known as the alula, the ability was there to fly at slow speeds with a measured amount of control.

As of this writing, November, 2008, the oldest known bird fossil is Archaeopteryx lithographica. This animal had three toes, long legs and an extended spine which formed a tail, a vestigal trait seen in embryonic chickens today. The teeth and jawbone were similar to that of small dinosaurs.

Present in the theropod dinosaurs before the time of Archaeopteryx were the presence of hollow bones, three-toed feet, backward pointing pelvic bones, and the characteristic wishbone. As theropods evolved, hands and forelimbs became longer. In some, the wrist joint was able to flex. This motion, which allowed some theropods to snatch prey quickly, is the same as the flight stroke motion of birds. As new fossils are discovered, the evidence continues to mount for the link between theropods and birds. More Cretaceous bird fossils have been discovered in the last twenty years than were discovered in all previous years combined.

Summary:

Some bird lineages that evolved from theropod dinosaurs survived, those lineages evolving into the spectacular number of diverse birds, flying and flightless, we see today!

Answer 4

The great thing about the scientific ideas is that they are always evolving, just like the creatures that inhabit the planet Earth. At this point in historical time, the idea that, and the evidence pointing to, the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs is gaining ground. Current research is being debated as is the case with all new scientific ideas. New theories and even new discoveries are often scoffed at by leaders in their respective fields, but eventually are proved beyond a shadow of a doubt by the preponderance of data and scientific scrutiny. Similarities between small theropod dinosaurs, which had many bird-like characteristics, would seem to fit the evolutionary trail of least resistance. As more and more discoveries are made, the resistance to this theory of bird evolution will dissolve, except in the few that may have a vested professional interest in denying it.

See related links below.

Creationist Views

Answer 1

There is no way to describe this since it didn't happen and there is no scientific evidence that it did. No scientist has ever demonstrated a mechanism for this to take place in terms of the massive genetic changes involved, nor is there evidence in the fossil record of dinosaurs changing into birds. Many evolutionary scientists now reject this theory. Archaeopteryx, the famous exhibit is now regarded as a bird, which it clearly is from the evidence. Both birds and dinosaurs have always been what they are.

In terms of the creation, both birds and dinosaurs were created as separate kinds in the beginning by almighty God. Although there are changes due to the inbuilt genetic variety of an organism there is no evidence of things changing into something else. The science of genetics (not the evolutionary theory) demonstrates that there are definite limits to genetic change within an organism.

A Problem of Dating:

Epidexipteryx hui is dated according to the evolutionary time scale at 152 to 168 million years old.

Archaeopteryx is dated according to the evolutionary time scale at 150 to 144 million years old.

Thus, according to the evolutionists own time scaleArchaeopteryx, which is supposed to be an ancestor was actually in existence before the creature from which it is allegedly evolved.

To use a simple analogy, a child cannot be older than its parent.

So, quite clearly there is a problem with the fossil evidence just as there is a problem with the complexities of genetics. It is genetically impossible for a dinosaur which is a reptile to evolve into a bird, just as the fossil record, using the evolutionary logic(for the sake of argument only) does not demonstrate this to be so.

Evolution, by its own dating disproves the change from dinosaurs into birds. some evolutionists themselves recognize the insurmountable problems with this theory and are looking elsewhere to explain the origin of the avian kind.

Mutations which are posited as one mechanism for this to happen do not explain the creation of completely new genetic information which drastically alters the dinosaur to change it into a bird. There is not one single example known to science of this ever having happened anywhere (of one creature changing into something quite different).

Genetics actually demonstrates that there are definite limits to change and that mutations and recombination do not create anything new.

Summary: Science cannot demonstrate how this alleged change took place. The fossil evidence does not demonstrate it. Genetics is against it. This is why some evolutionists are now against it as well. Most likely it did not happen.

Some Evolutionists Say "No"

Some evolutionist scientists, including leading ornithologist Alan Feduccia (professor of Biology at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill) together with Drs. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar of the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa and Richard Hinchliffe of the University College of Wales have serious misgivings about feathered dinosaur claims. They believe these to be 'bad science' and note that when examined under the microscope they appear to be skin and not feathers.

In their studies these scientists also noted similar structures in fossils which were not related to dinosaurs. Feduccia and others also note significant differences in the morphology of birds when compared to dinosaurs which make it impossible for the birds to have come from dinosaurs, although he (Feduccia), being an evolutionist, still believes they had a common ancestor.

These scientists, being evolutionists, also decry the opportunity these exaggerated claims, which they see as unscientific and lacking in solid evidence give the creation scientists the opportunity to 'shoot holes' in the evolutionary framework. According to these scientists "The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of 'dinosaurian science' as evidence against the theory of evolution," he said.

Thus when looked at closely by scientists the evidence provided for dinosaur evolution into birds is lacking. Creation scientists agree about the lack of evidence of course, although they do not agree about the common ancestor. Both birds and dinosaurs, although quite different, were made by the same creator.

By proponents, do you mean people who support it? Or do you mean components? Either way, I can't give you a straight answer. There are many big proponents of Intelligent Design, but I have never heard of any concrete components of it.

Intelligent Design advocates state that all life was designed by a higher power. They derive their belief from the complexity of DNA and Biblical scripture. They also generally believe that evolution is not true. Unfortunately for ID advocates, the evidence for evolution far outweighs any suggestive assumption against evolution derived from one point of view and one belief system. The evidence only points in one direction, and that direction is that evolution is absolutely true.

Also, by definition, God is uncaused.

Nothing new.

See also:

Is there evidence for Creation?

Can you show that God exists?

Seeing God's wisdom

First, there are two creation stories in Genesis: (1) verses 1:1 to 2:4a; (2) 2:4b to 2:22. The first of these (1:1-2:4a) is recognised by scholars as the work of the Priestly (P) source, based on a Mesopotamian myth encountered by the Jews in Babylon. So, the creation account that has the world created in six days, which every Christian learns as a child, did not even exist prior to the sixth century BCE. The second account (2:4b-2:22) predated the other in Judaism but was never considered important, except for the creation of Adam, then later Eve. A summary follows, in order to show that these are really two quite separate accounts:
In Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a ( up to first sentence of 2:4) there was a pre-existing watery chaos. The ocean was already present and a wind moved across the surface. The seas rested on the dry land, which appeared on day 3 when God gathered the waters together. The order of creation was as follows: (Day 1) light [day]; (2) the firmament, which was believed to separate the waters of the heavens from the lower waters; (3) By gathering the lower waters in one place the land appeared. Grasses and trees; (4) sun; moon and stars - the lights in the firmament; (5) fish, land creatures and fowl; (6) man, both male and female. Notice that the light of day was not yet understood to have originated from the sun, although the sun was universally understood to rule the day. That is why it was possible to have grass and trees before the sun was created.

Genesis 2:4b to 2:15 says that there was pre-existing dry land, but God had yet to make it rain for plants to grow. A spring arose and God took some moist clay and made Adam. After Adam, he made the creatures of earth, one by one, then finally Eve. This account could scarcely be different from the previous version.

It may seem surprising that, in both creation stories, the basics were already there - the waters, the dry land, the wind and therefore the air. Many experts in Hebrew have carefully examined the texts and confirm that this is what they say. These biblical creations were not ex nihilo. And the first-century Jewish philosopher, Philo, insisted that the creation was an allegory: "To think that it means that God planted vines, or olive trees, or apple trees, or pomegranates, or any trees of such kinds, is mere incurable folly."

Fragments of references to chaos-creation stories can be found in Psalms, where God defeated the many-headed Leviathan, and in Job. Job 41:25 says even the other gods (KJV: The mighty) fear Leviathan.

For more information on how the biblical creation stories are interpreted in modern times, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Isaiah 40:22 in the Old Testament of the Bible says:

It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in.

So the earth was known to be round in Bible days.

1-1-09: Also, in the book of Job Chap. 26 it says, "He hangs the earth upon nothing.." So Job knew the earth was hanging out in space by nothing.

My search produced the following verses;

1. "....one end of the earth even unto the other.." Only flat surface have ends.. Dt 28;64. See also Psalm 19:4.

2. ".... from the four corners of the earth..." Isa 11:12. Sphere don't have corners, a sheet of paper have four corners.

3. ,,," into an exceeding high mountain, and shows him all the kingdoms of the world,.." Only in a flat earth can this verse be true.. Mt.4:8 see also Luke 4:5

4. ".... he comes with clouds; and every eye shall see him,..." Rev 1:7. This is only possible in a flat Earth.

5. "....He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,..." Isaiah 40:22. A circle as we all know is a flat circular disk just like a coin or round as drawn with a compass.

Also we know the earth is round and we still say one end of the earth to the other- because we are referring to a map. I would assume an all knowing being would know we would have maps-

Well understand that I am a atheist and don't believe in god but I will attempt to answer this.

The creation stories of all religions tend to give different reasons on why they created mortal men. In the christian mythology the closest thing to a answer to your question would be this.

"Let us make man in our own image according to our likeness. Let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over ALL the earth, and over everything that creeps or moves" (Genesis 1:26 ).

While not really giving a satisfying reason it is basically to rule over the Earth. The made in the imagine suggests that we are the equalization of god on this planet as he would be to us. (of course this is a joke because simple microorganisms can kill us)

So in the christian mythology he didn't need to create man in fact he had very little reason to do so in the first place.

Actually, if God didn't exist then we all wouldn't be created.

The concept of "god" was, indeed, created. By man!

Man created the idea that an all-powerful being created the universe and all living things. This was simply to answer the question, "Where did we come from?" Gods were also responsible for day and night, rain, lightning, thunder, and all other forces of nature that were, at the time, unexplainable.

When it became clear that people wanted to please the gods and would do whatever they wanted, Man began to capitalize on this loyalty by declaring that the gods have issued rules by which man should live. These were, of course, simply the rules the religious and political leaders had in mind. Today, the "ten commandments" is an example of this concept. The positive reinforcement is the concept of "heaven;" the negative reinforcement is the concept of "hell."

Today, science has unraveled many of the mysteries previously ascribed to gods. There is no need for these superstitions. Man, however, still clings to these concepts as through they are real. Slowly, religion and the concept of "god" is dying out in the world as Man begins to take off the blinders of superstition he has so comfortably worn for so many thousands of years.

Yes. Water is one of the requirements of life, and was formed along with the Earth.

Another Answer:

Reading Genesis 1, one notes that the Earth was covered in water in the darkness. Then God, re-creates the then void and formless Earth (Psalm 104:30).