Interesting find that further shows the relation between dinosaurs and birds

[6days]

Another manifestation of your ridiculous understanding of science. You really do think scientists just sit around making up stories...

Your posts are always interesting, although not always factual.*


Yes, I do think scientists just sit atound...when they are home watching hockey. *However, at work, most scientists are working on improving our lives through new technologies, or advancements in medicine. Perhaps a few sit around making up stories and feathering fossils.*

 

[Jose Fly]

Perhaps a few sit around making up stories and feathering fossils.*

Of course you won't specifically name any of these scientists. No, far safer to just throw around vague, unsubstantiated accusations against "a few"....

...it's also cowardly and dishonest.

It's also obvious that you just throw around these baseless accusations without bothering to think. You see, if "a few" scientists really were publishing papers that were nothing more than made-up stories that had absolutely no evidence, that leads to an obvious issue....

Their colleagues who reviewed and published the paper must have been too incompetent to notice. Plus, all their colleagues who read the paper and failed to comment (either in a letter to the journal or a counter-paper) had to have been equally incompetent.

And apparently you think you're the only one skilled enough to catch it, even though you admit you don't know much about the subject and haven't actually read the paper.

This is what creationism does to people.

 

[6days]

*You see, if "a few" scientists really were publishing papers....

Here comes another strawman. Nobody said anything about "publishing papers".

Instant replay...

JOSE FLY: "You really do think scientists just sit around making up stories...

6DAYS: "Yes, I do think scientists just sit around...when they are home watching hockey. However, at work, most scientists are working on improving our lives through new technologies, or advancements in medicine. Perhaps a few sit around making up stories and feathering fossils"
Strawman fallacy to Jose Fly. 2 minutes in the penalty box.

Their colleagues who reviewed and published the paper must have been too incompetent to notice. Plus, all their colleagues who read the paper and failed to comment (either in a letter to the journal or a counter-paper) had to have been equally incompetent.

After your 2 minutes in the penalty box expires, you can sit on the end of the bench for the rest of the evening. We need players who can use their heads.

Peer review is good Jose. But you are likely as aware as I am of the MANY peer reviewed articles where science has proven their conclusions wrong. You likely are aware of some of the failings of the system. Its strange you and other evolutionists mention this as if its a fail safe method that should be blondly believed. Again..... what I said was "most scientists are working on improving our lives through new technologies, or advancements in medicine. Perhaps a few sit around making up stories and feathering fossils"

And in case you are unaware of the "few" (%) I mentioned... it also applies to peer review...
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/



Peer review: Troubled from the start

http://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763


Problems with Peer-Review: A Brief Summary

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/problems_with_p056241.html



FAKE Paper Exposes Failed Peer Review

http://mobile.the-scientist.com/article/37798/fake-paper-exposes-failed-peer-review

 

[Greg Jennings]

They may be wing bones Greg.... I wouldn't know. The article says the fossil is birdlike. Feathers though is a misrepresentation based on the belief dinosaurs evolved into birds. Bats are birdlike and don't have feathers. Penguins seem less birdlike in some ways yet they are birds that do have 'feathers'.*

They are wings, and considering that other dinosaurs in the same genus HAVE been found with feathers, I think it's a safe bet that this winged dinosaur had a few feathers, don't you?

According to Wiki, archaeopteryx lived 150 million years ago, and had "advanced" feathers.*

As I stated, I wasn't positive

Birds and dinosaurs did exist together. *There is no evidence of evolution of feathers. *It seems the evidence is drawings in National Geographic.*

Except for those dinosaurs with feathers, and birds with teeth, and bird hip/bone/nasal cavity structure found in dinosaur fossils.

But you're right, if you discount ALL of the evidence showing the relation between birds and dinosaurs, there is none! Amazing!

Really? The thing is there are dozens of floods every year and we don't see a pattern of fossils starting to form after these floods. We certainly don't see large creatures like elephants and whales being fossilized by a flood. Jellyfish are not fossilized in normal floods. What is required is large amounts of sediment and water. The global flood model of world wide volcanic activity...fountains of the deep opening... provides the means of rapid burial in sediment...preservation...fossilization. The birdlike creature trapped in sediment is one more piece of evidence supporting the global flood. *

Tell me one piece of evidence leading you to the conclusion that this dinosaur died in a GLOBAL flood

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nope.

He posed a single question: Where is the evidence?

I answered in great detail.

Of course you did. As always, right?

The response from the Darwinists was to run for the hills and then lie about the nature of my involvement.

Seriously, the record is right there. Why would you make this absurd claim?

How deeply do you want to delve into your record, really? I'm game, but I don't think you should be

I guess that's just you running for the hills again

Evidence. We consider evidence. That's how science works. Evolutionists want nothing to do with it so they'll say anything to avoid it.

Name one even marginally respected scientist who said the same. One

Therefore, something. :idunno:

Flash floods erode. They never result in rocks being formed.

Obviously an expert in geology :chuckle:

Tsunami also erode only. No rock-making involved.

If an event is catastrophic enough, it leaves a mark in the geologic record. Like we see in the K-T boundary, where a later of soot stands where a meteor impacted Earth 65 million years ago. The crater is in the Gul of Mexico

They have. There's a great example at Glen Rose. :thumb:

Since you cannot tell that those "dinosaur" tracks are horribly misshapen, am I right in assuming you've never done any field work concerning geology or paleontology?

 

[Stripe]

How deeply do you want to delve into your record, really? I'm game, but I don't think you should be.

:AMR:

As I said, it's right there.

Name one even marginally respected scientist who said the same. One

Said what? :AMR:

Obviously an expert in geology

You think I'm wrong. Show us a rock formed in a flash flood in the past 10 years. :thumb:

If an event is catastrophic enough, it leaves a mark in the geologic record.

That's nice. What I spoke of was "rock formation," not "a mark."

Try to deal with the evidence. We have dinos frozen in rock. What we need to account for is how the rock got there. Flash floods and tsunami do not achieve that.

Like we see in the K-T boundary, where a later of soot stands where a meteor impacted Earth 65 million years ago. The crater is in the Gul of Mexico

It's not even a crater. The rest is just story. Stories are not evidence.

Since you cannot tell that those "dinosaur" tracks are horribly misshapen.

:AMR:

Ever walked on wet sand?

Am I right in assuming you've never done any field work concerning geology or paleontology?

Nope.

I've done plenty.

What experience with rocks do you have?

 

[6days]

They are wings...

They quite possibly are. They also could be flippers or even arms. There are similar designs. If interested google for similatity between human arms and chicken wings.*

and considering that other dinosaurs in the same genus HAVE been found with feathers...

I think you missed a word.Did you mean to say oviraptors and theropods may have had feathers? I have seen disagreement between scientists on this, but perhaps there is now better evidence?

Birds and dinosaurs did exist together. *There is no evidence of evolution of feathers. *It seems the evidence is drawings in National Geographic.

Except for those dinosaurs with feathers, and birds with teeth, and bird hip/bone/nasal cavity structure found in dinosaur fossils.*

Please explain what you mean. Are you saying that if a bird has teeth, that means it evolved from an animal that also had teeth? Or...that if dinosaurs had feathers then that explains why birds have feathers. Does structural similarity between various creatures indicate they evolved from one another?

If that is what you are suggesting, I'm sure you can see how illogical that is. There is no evidence that feathers evolved.*

Tell me one piece of evidence leading you to the conclusion that this dinosaur died in a*GLOBALflood

'This' dinosaur shows evidence of being trapped in sediment.....it has the classic drowning pose.... and was rapidly buried and preserved in sediment. Thats what this fossil shows. It is the world wide pattern of fossils such as 'this' dinosaur that is evidence of the Biblical flood.
BTW... check out news from yesterday... google dinosaur feather in amber

 

[Jose Fly]

Here comes another strawman. Nobody said anything about "publishing papers".

Then one has to wonder just where you think scientists are telling these made-up unevidenced stories.

But it's quite apparent now that you lack both the courage and integrity to do anything more than throw around baseless accusations.

Peer review is good Jose. But you are likely as aware as I am of the MANY peer reviewed articles where science has proven their conclusions wrong.

Well duh. Unless you can show me where anyone has said peer-review is a 100% absolutely perfect process that generates 100% accurate conclusions the first time, every time, then you're arguing against your own straw man.

Plus, peer review is infinitely superior to your method of, "If it agrees with the Bible it's right, if it disagrees with the Bible it's wrong".

Its strange you and other evolutionists mention this as if its a fail safe method that should be blondly believed.

Liar. I never said anything of the sort.

Again..... what I said was "most scientists are working on improving our lives through new technologies, or advancements in medicine. Perhaps a few sit around making up stories and feathering fossils"

So despite all this, you just repeat your baseless accusation. What a coward you are.

 

[Greg Jennings]

You think I'm wrong. Show us a rock formed in a flash flood in the past 10 years. :thumb:

Ever heard of a conglomerate? They're everywhere.

That's nice. What I spoke of was "rock formation," not "a mark."

It's not my fault you can't understand why a worldwide layer of soot within the geologic record is significant. But it does give the impression that you lack knowledge on the subject

Try to deal with the evidence. We have dinos frozen in rock. What we need to account for is how the rock got there. Flash floods and tsunami do not achieve that.

I want you to tell me how you think that sedimentary rocks form. I would appreciate you NOT dodging

It's not even a crater. The rest is just story. Stories are not evidence.

Scientists are not undecided as to whether an impact crater exists in the Gulf of Mexico. Again, I'm sorry you don't like it, but the facts are that it DOES exist, and it is most certainly due to meteorite impact

:AMR:

Ever walked on wet sand?

Yes, and it makes perfect human footprints unless you're dragging your feet

Now show me where dinosaur fossils and human remains have been found in the same rock strata? Proven hoaxes don't count unfortunately

Nope.

I've done plenty [of geology and paleontology fieldwork]

Elaborate for us all, please

What experience with rocks do you have?

Three months of field work in different summers around Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Idaho. Additionally, many many labs with minerals and rocks. What is your experience?

 

[Greg Jennings]

They quite possibly are. They also could be flippers or even arms. There are similar designs. If interested google for similatity between human arms and chicken wings.*

Are you saying that scientists can't recognize a wing bone when they see it, and after it has been thoroughly examined?

I think you missed a word.Did you mean to say oviraptors and theropods may have had feathers? I have seen disagreement between scientists on this, but perhaps there is now better evidence?

I don't believe there is much doubt on oviraptors, but I'm not positive. However, you KNOW that many dinosaurs HAVE been found with feathers, including some with wing-like arms. And as you also know, we are 100% positive that feathered dinosaurs existed and were the norm, as evidenced by the recent Amber tail

Please explain what you mean. Are you saying that if a bird has teeth, that means it evolved from an animal that also had teeth? Or...that if dinosaurs had feathers then that explains why birds have feathers. Does structural similarity between various creatures indicate they evolved from one another?

We have transitional stages between birds and dinosaurs. We have such high genetic similarities that we can grow teeth in chickens, in addition to several other modifications that their ancestors had. Some birds even have claws on their arms when young.

At the very least, birds and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, one that no other major groups share. The evidence clearly bears this out, which is why scientists are positive

If that is what you are suggesting, I'm sure you can see how illogical that is. There is no evidence that feathers evolved.*

Yes, there is. Look at the types of feathers dinosaurs had. Many have feathers that are fine, hair-like. They aren't like modern feathers that are usually for flight. They are more like what a penguin has

'This' dinosaur shows evidence of being trapped in sediment.....it has the classic drowning pose.... and was rapidly buried and preserved in sediment. Thats what this fossil shows. It is the world wide pattern of fossils such as 'this' dinosaur that is evidence of the Biblical flood.
BTW... check out news from yesterday... google dinosaur feather in amber

So again, what evidence do you have leading to you to believe that this was a GLOBAL flood, and not a regional one?

 

[6days]

Are you saying that scientists can't recognize a wing bone when they see it, and after it has been thoroughly examined?

Correct. There are other similar bone structures. When bones are crushed and pieces missing, mistakes are easily made.*

I don't believe there is much doubt on oviraptors, but I'm not positive. However, you KNOW that many dinosaurs HAVE been found with feathers, including some with wing-like arms. And as you also know, we are 100% positive that feathered dinosaurs existed and were the norm, as evidenced by the recent Amber tail

I would be careful about saying you are 100%: sure of things. You don't seem to have a good track record on various statements you have made. You might be right about feathers but which creature is there 100% agreement on? Sunosauroteryx?caudipteryx? And, what would a dinosaur with feathers mean to you?*

We have transitional stages between birds and dinosaurs.

Nope.*

You have a belief system that doesn't match the evidence. Even some prominent evolutionists reject that belief.*

*We have such high genetic similarities

Are you sure? Some thought the sequencing method was a bit hokey...and that the results were closer to that of amphibians. Lots of times you see only what you want. (Sort of like the disproven claims of chimp / human similarity)

that we can grow teeth in chickens

So..... chickens have a genetic switch for making teeth. *Some extinct birds had teeth. Birds no longer have teeth... therefore....trex evolved into a chicken? Or, more likely its evidence of extinctions and *adaptations.

in addition to several other modifications that their ancestors had. Some birds even have claws on their arms when young.

You mean on their wings?

Archaeopteryx had claws on *its wings. As you mention a modern bird has that feature. Various birds have various very uniques features such as wood ducks that perch in trees with the aid of long claws. Its evidence of design.

At the very least, birds and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, one that no other major groups share. The evidence clearly bears this out, which is why scientists are positive*

Birds provide fantastic evidence of our Creator. Each bird has a variety of differently designed feathers, each with distinctive functions. *The design features of birds speak creation and show us how silly the reptile to bird belief is. We can marvel at all the various skills and feats involved in flight...and landing. We can see the unique lung system birds have....the ability to migrate to precise destinations...the eyes of eagles....the heart of hummingbirds.....the hook and loop design in wing bones (coracoid and clavicle bones).*.the design of wook peckers tongues....brains 3 times the size of dino brains in proportion....etc.*

So again, what evidence do you have leading to you to believe that this was a GLOBAL flood, and not a regional one?

You must have missed it but this was answered.This' dinosaur shows evidence of being trapped in sediment.....it has the classic drowning pose.... and was rapidly buried and preserved in sediment. Thats what*this*fossil shows. It is the world wide pattern of fossils such as 'this' dinosaur that is evidence of the Biblical flood.

 

[Lon]

Unless you can show me where anyone has said peer-review is a 100% absolutely perfect process that generates 100% accurate conclusions the first time, every time, then you're arguing against your own straw man.

It's always fascinating to see someone apply the anti-scientific framework: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record".

Plus, peer review is infinitely superior to your method of, "If it agrees with the Bible it's right, if it disagrees with the Bible it's wrong".

:doh: You literally are saying that fallible men are more reliable than God who is infallible. Posturing is your modus operandi and to a ridiculously indefensible extent. Of course you are only here for fun, so that over-inflated and too-impossibly-high-to-be-true peak leaves you as a continual caricature on TOL. My brother is a biologist. He has his own reservations about the evidence as a legitimate man of science. That a Christian then, would come behind and have those same reservations that legitimate science has? You need to wake up a little bit fella. You are nowhere near as open to actual data and discussion "in science" you say you are. You are just really one of the happily duped masses that stopped thinking a long time ago. Does it matter? No, because by your own admission, you aren't here for that purpose BUT you take pot shots as if you actually were some science guru someone should listen to or esteem your opinion as anything. You frankly hate too much for 'fun' to ever be light. Your fun is the kind that throws cats in bags in lakes. It is a bit darker 'fun' than the average nice person out there. Whatever your beef, it is a bit darker than you admit on TOL. It isn't as honest or intelligent, even, as you'd like to try and portray.

Liar. I never said anything of the sort.

See, that's not something you say 'just for fun...'
"as if" isn't a 'liar speculation.' :yawn:

You have an inane but very emotional bee in your bonnet...

So despite all this, you just repeat your baseless accusation. What a coward you are.

Nope. :yawn: (again) I call and talk to my brother when these things come up. He has a biology degree. He tends to not jump the gun, you know, like these rag articles do. Instead, he says science doesn't work this way, that we have to sit back and gather a LOT more data before speculating. My first question in thread was "what, no photograph?" We need 'better' evidence not artist renditions and speculation. Speculation is great, but it is more than obvious that a lot of hype goes before reasoning. Why? $$$ fame, power, etc. Truth isn't won by whoever has the most money. Truth is 'just what is.' The neat thing about truth is, it stands, even in a society that doesn't desire it and lives more by emotions than intellect (true today where feelings trump truth). Truth isn't even our collective consensus and agreement. We can all be wrong. Am I telling you anything? :nono: sometimes I just think your ego is too big to actually hear what is true. These past two posts of yours are examples of such, you cannot possibly deliver on. I 'think' my biologist brother is correct and you aren't on this particular.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Correct. There are other similar bone structures. When bones are crushed and pieces missing, mistakes are easily made.*

In the photo that you obviously didn't look at, at least one arm is fully intact. What's your next excuse?

I would be careful about saying you are 100%: sure of things. You don't seem to have a good track record on various statements you have made. You might be right about feathers but which creature is there 100% agreement on? Sunosauroteryx?caudipteryx? And, what would a dinosaur with feathers mean to you?*

Do you deny that many species of dinosaurs had feathers? I'm tired of you beating around the bush.

Nope.*

You have a belief system that doesn't match the evidence. Even some prominent evolutionists reject that belief.*

This is just a lie. Just as you did earlier when saying that there is no evidence that feathers evolved, you are lying. In the fossil record, we first see dinosaurs, then dinosaurs with bird hip structure, then dinosaurs with feathers and hip structure, THEN dinosaurs with feathers/hip structure/beak, then we see actual birds! If birds had evolved (or as you prefer, been poofed into existence from inorganic dust) independently of dinosaurs, this is not what we'd expect to see

The evidence is ridiculously overwhelming.
Show me one "evolutionist" who doubts that dinosaurs and birds are very very closely related.

Are you sure? Some thought the sequencing method was a bit hokey...and that the results were closer to that of amphibians. Lots of times you see only what you want. (Sort of like the disproven claims of chimp / human similarity)

Some dinosaurs, particularly the Triassic varieties, SHOULD be more closely related to amphibians than birds. That fits in perfectly with what we know about amphibian, reptile, and bird evolution. I doubt you know this, but according to the geologic record, amphibians gave rise to reptiles.

So..... chickens have a genetic switch for making teeth. *Some extinct birds had teeth. Birds no longer have teeth... therefore....trex evolved into a chicken? Or, more likely its evidence of extinctions and *adaptations.

You cut off the list of similarities that I made. No matter, most are listed above. Birds and dinosaurs are only separated by a few very small differences, teeth and claws being chief among them. Otherwise, I'm not sure there is a difference. THAT is how similar they are

What extinct bird has teeth? Not saying you're wrong, but I can't think of one
Explain to me how teeth in chickens is evidence of extinctions under you biblical creation model?

You mean on their wings?

Archaeopteryx had claws on *its wings. As you mention a modern bird has that feature. Various birds have various very uniques features such as wood ducks that perch in trees with the aid of long claws. Its evidence of design.

No, they're called hoatzins. The chicks don't have wings. They have claws instead, that later develop into wings as adults.

You have no evidence of design. Would you consider a cube of a mineral to be designed? It's symmetrical after all. Nature couldn't have made it, right?

Birds provide fantastic evidence of our Creator. Each bird has a variety of differently designed feathers, each with distinctive functions. *The design features of birds speak creation and show us how silly the reptile to bird belief is. We can marvel at all the various skills and feats involved in flight...and landing. We can see the unique lung system birds have....the ability to migrate to precise destinations...the eyes of eagles....the heart of hummingbirds.....the hook and loop design in wing bones (coracoid and clavicle bones).*.the design of wook peckers tongues....brains 3 times the size of dino brains in proportion....etc.*

All of what you described above fits in perfectly with what we'd expect from 65 million years of evolution after dinosaurs died out. OF COURSE birds are smarter and more highly evolved, theyve been around for 65 million more years!

You must have missed it but this was answered.This' dinosaur shows evidence of being trapped in sediment.....it has the classic drowning pose.... and was rapidly buried and preserved in sediment. Thats what*this*fossil shows. It is the world wide pattern of fossils such as 'this' dinosaur that is evidence of the Biblical flood.

No, I didn't. You presented evidence showing that a flood killed this dinosaur, something nobody is disputing. You did not show that A) this dinosaur was killed in a GLOBAL flood or B) showed evidence that a GLOBAL flood ever occurred at all. An event that big would absolutely leave a major mark in the geologic record, similar to the layer of soot produced by the K-T impact event (though it wouldn't be soot obviously).

Instead, all you do is claim that because preserved dinosaurs usually died in a flood, therefore there was a global flood.

See the disconnect there? Animals die and are preserved in floods daily around the world. Are they also evidence of a global flood?

 

[Jose Fly]

:doh: You literally are saying that fallible men are more reliable than God who is infallible.

Only to those who believe the Christian Bible represents the "word of God". To those of us who don't, the Christian Bible has the same status as the Book of Mormon does with you.

My brother is a biologist. He has his own reservations about the evidence as a legitimate man of science.

And as a scientist, he should understand that unless he writes up those "reservations" and publishes them in a journal, no one cares.

You are nowhere near as open to actual data and discussion "in science" you say you are. You are just really one of the happily duped masses that stopped thinking a long time ago.

Christians who believe in stationary-earth geocentrism say the same about you.

See, that's not something you say 'just for fun...' "as if" isn't a 'liar speculation.'

No, it's an obvious fact. 6days claimed I advocated a position that I've never advocated.

Nope. :yawn: (again) I call and talk to my brother when these things come up. He has a biology degree. He tends to not jump the gun, you know, like these rag articles do. Instead, he says science doesn't work this way, that we have to sit back and gather a LOT more data before speculating.

Again, no one cares about your brother's personal opinions. Unless he publishes them, they will forever remain 100% scientifically irrelevant.

My first question in thread was "what, no photograph?" We need 'better' evidence not artist renditions and speculation. Speculation is great, but it is more than obvious that a lot of hype goes before reasoning.

Yet I'd bet you never bothered to read the actual paper....while remaining completely oblivious as to why that's a problem.

Why? $$$ fame, power, etc. Truth isn't won by whoever has the most money.

So like 6days you throw around baseless accusations against people you know almost nothing about. Why? Because they dared reach conclusions that contradict your religious beliefs. How pathetic and intellectually lazy of you.

I 'think' my biologist brother is correct and you aren't on this particular.

Fundamentalist Christian sides with fellow fundamentalist Christian....gee, what a surprise.

 

[6days]

In the photo that you obviously didn't look at, at least one arm is fully intact.

Sure..... but before you called it a wing. Maybe you meant a wing on one side and a arm on the other? Then you are correct no matter what.*

Do you deny that many species of dinosaurs had feathers?

I did answer. I' m not certain, but some dinosaurs may have had feathers. You said you are 100% certain, so I asked which dinosaur you are sure about.*

You have a belief system that doesn't match the evidence. Even some prominent evolutionists reject that belief.

This is just a lie.Plain and simple, you are lying. In the fossil record, we first see dinosaurs, then dinosaurs with bird hip structure, then dinosaurs with feathers and hip structure, THEN dinosaurs with feathers/hip structure/beak, then we see actual birds!

Its easy to arrange things such as fossils to make almost any pattern you want. We could take a poodle skelton and arrange a neat progression up to a lion. But it would be silly to say that lions evolved from poodles. Often the fossils found date the layers...and the layers date the fossils. Recently I gave an example where they changed the date of a layer by more than 100 million years because of the fossil.

If birds had evolved (or as you prefer, been poofed into existence from inorganic dust) independently of dinosaurs, this is not what we'd expect to see

What we see is consistent with the Biblical account. We see sudden appearance of various kinds. We see sophistication and intelligently designed features. And... we don't see birds in lowest flood layers.

The evidence is ridiculously overwhelming.
Show me one "evolutionist" who doubts that dinosaurs and birds are very very closely related.

Greg... examine your blind belief system. You continue saying things that are clearly beliefs of yours, not supported by evidence.

First off...you are moving the goal posts...or trying to. Your comment before was that there were many transitionals between dinosaur and bird

Did you want to discuss how there are no transitionals...Or, how homology does not mean common ancestry?

Secondly...yes there are evolutionists who are very skeptical of the dino to bird thing...examples:

John*Alan Feduccia*(born*25 April 1943) is a paleornithologist, specializing in the origins and phylogeny of birds. ...Feduccia is best known for his criticisms of the widely held view that birds originated from and are deeply nested within Theropoda, and are therefore living theropod dinosaurs.

Next up...
Larry Dean Martin (December 8, 1943 – March 9, 2013) was an American vertebratepaleontologist and curator of the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center at the University of Kansas.[1] Among Martin's work is research on the Triassicreptile Longisquama and theropod dinosaur(or fossil bird) Caudipteryx and Dakotaraptor. According to the University of Kansas, he "has been a leading opponent of the theory that birds are 'living dinosaurs.'"*
(Above from Wiki)

Some dinosaurs, particularly the Triassic varieties, SHOULD be more closely related to amphibians than birds. That fits in perfectly with what we know about amphibian, reptile, and bird evolution. I doubt you know this, but according to the geologic record, amphibians gave rise to reptiles.[/b] You are a pretty smart guy!

...Birds and dinosaurs are only separated by a few very small differences, teeth and claws being chief among them. Otherwise, I'm not sure there is a difference. THAT is how similar they are[/quote] You are a smart guy Greg, but don't know much about 'evolution'. Teeth and claws are similarities. I can tell you the major differences if you wish. But...lets look at the similarities

Claws likely was a feature on all dinosaurs and also exists on many birds. (They also both have eyes and other similar parts). Claws (and eyes) is not evidence that one evolved from the other.

To show claws in birds..."All too few people seem to realise that birds have hands; it’s just that these parts of the body are – normally – mostly obscured from view by the feathers. While the main role of the bird hand is to support remiges (the big wing feathers), less well known is that many birds possess claws, spurs, spikes and knobs on their hands and wrists..."[/b]

An example that pops into my head is a duck... it walks like a duck...looks like a duck...it likely quacks like a duck.. BUT...IT'S NOT A DUCK... Hee hee..Or, at least according to evolutionists its not a duck because it was found in the wrong layer. It has "striking similarities" to ducks and ""It was unexpected to find a bird this advanced in rocks this old"http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060615-dinosaurs_2.html

 

[6days]

Above post of mine somehow got messed up... ßorry but parts of what i quoted vaporized... anyways...the point is that in the beginning...God created.

 

[Lon]

Only to those who believe the Christian Bible represents the "word of God". To those of us who don't, the Christian Bible has the same status as the Book of Mormon does with you.

No, you really can't speak for everybody. You are a small eclectic bunch.

And as a scientist, he should understand that unless he writes up those "reservations" and publishes them in a journal, no one cares.

Goes both ways, BUT the # that reject Darwinian philosophy is still high here in America. You are the last man picked.
Your protestations of superiority are delusional. It always points to compensation and past frustration/hurts. For some reason you have a lot of angst toward God and/or Christians....

Christians who believe in stationary-earth geocentrism say the same about you.

Doesn't matter.... what matters is actually 'thinking.' :think:

No, it's an obvious fact. 6days claimed I advocated a position that I've never advocated.

No.... He said 'as if...'

Again, no one cares about your brother's personal opinions. Unless he publishes them, they will forever remain 100% scientifically irrelevant.

And AGAIN, I take him over you. You are the one left huffing and puffing 'as a supposed voice of science...' Ever wonder why the # of those who buy into Darwinian postulations is low? No? :think: Intriguing... It really is...
The vocal science community seem a haughty lot. The rest of science goes about business as usual and most are Christians...

Yet I'd bet you never bothered to read the actual paper....while remaining completely oblivious as to why that's a problem.

Don't play at the casino this month...

So like 6days you throw around baseless accusations against people you know almost nothing about. Why? Because they dared reach conclusions that contradict your religious beliefs. How pathetic and intellectually lazy of you.

How trivial and mindless of you, actually. You don't like it and this is standard fare for you. It is mindless/brainless. Grow one. You are incredibly naïve on this point. You really are. Sadly, you've become a dupe. Seriously, grow one! Don't be a mindless dupe.

Fundamentalist Christian sides with fellow fundamentalist Christian....gee, what a surprise.

AGAIN jumping to conclusions. Why? Because you don't really want to be a thinking person here. It is part of that 'fun' thing lain:

 

[Stripe]

Ever heard of a conglomerate?

Yep.

Can you show us one that formed from a flash flood in the past 10 years?

It's not my fault you can't understand why a worldwide layer of soot within the geologic record is significant. But it does give the impression that you lack knowledge on the subject

We knew you weren't talking about a crater.

I want you to tell me how you think that sedimentary rocks form. I would appreciate you NOT dodging.

Making demands to dodge the evidence is not going to work.

Scientists are not undecided as to whether an impact crater exists in the Gulf of Mexico.

Popularity is not an argument.

Again, I'm sorry you don't like it, but the facts are that it DOES exist, and it is most certainly due to meteorite impact

Of course it exists.

Of course it is not necessarily a crater.

Yes, and it makes perfect human footprints unless you're dragging your feet

:darwinsm:

Now show me where dinosaur fossils and human remains have been found in the same rock strata?

Darwinists hate reading.

Elaborate for us all, please

So you can avoid scrutiny of your nonsense?

Three months of field work in different summers around Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Idaho. Additionally, many many labs with minerals and rocks. What is your experience?

Great! then you should know that flash floods and tsunami do not create rocks. :up:

 

[Jose Fly]

Goes both ways, BUT the # that reject Darwinian philosophy is still high here in America. You are the last man picked.
Your protestations of superiority are delusional. It always points to compensation and past frustration/hurts. For some reason you have a lot of angst toward God and/or Christians....

You completely dodged the point. The fact remains, your brother's views on evolutionary biology will remain 100% scientifically irrelevant unless he presents them in a professional setting.

And AGAIN, I take him over you.

And again, no one is surprised that fundamentalist Christians side with each other over science.

How trivial and mindless of you, actually. You don't like it and this is standard fare for you.

No, I don't like it when ignorant people like you throw around baseless accusations against scientists whom you know nothing about.

The fact that you don't see it as a problem speaks volumes about you.

AGAIN jumping to conclusions. Why? Because you don't really want to be a thinking person here.

You're not even making sense. You explicitly stated that you think your brother is "correct", so what conclusion you think I'm jumping to is a mystery.

And if you want to see me be a "thinking person here", then give me something to think about....something besides 6days' endless repetition of the same series of sound bytes, or your "my brother says so".

If you have something worth thinking about, then post it. If you don't, admit it and we can move on.

 

[Lon]

You completely dodged the point. The fact remains, your brother's views o...."my brother says so".

If you have something worth thinking about, then post it. If you don't, admit it and we can move on.

Um, just because somebody is a professor doesn't make him king of the hill. Science DOESN'T work this way. Consensus is necessary 'just to move' ahead on some assumptions but you don't have to follow another's speculation, assumptions, or research to work on a cure for cancer, for instance.

"My brother" said he didn't think science worked this way: to purport something THEN try to prove it after you've overstepped your bounds with the conclusion. Sure, science is always retesting BUT I've sat enough science classes to know you are not supposed to jump the gun and that such is greatly discouraged. It is 'speculated' that dinosaurs came from birds. Now everyone is publishing their findings way way before they can deliver. In this thread, I asked for a photograph, among other things. It is ridiculous, at least in initial assessment, for this article to exist. What has it delivered on? And you think there is no bias nor politicking going on in science? Truly? I 'think' a little skepticism is frankly good and necessary for science. Peer review doesn't have to be published. Who made that rule? No lab needs to 'check' with the author or you to move in a different direction. Sometimes I think you don't see how indoctrinated you are.