6days said:
We were talking about a fossil dinosaur where 'someone' claimed it had feathers.
However the point in this thread is whether it is reasonable to believe that some dinosaurs had feathers, not whether on one specific example it was arguably unclear.
Not really..... We were talking about one specific example. Michael had asked for a picture of a feathered reptile. Then Stu posted the picture with the dishonest caption.
I don't agree with the religious opinion Michael made following the dishonest picture and caption, but you decided to lecture him about " real evidence and scientific rigorous endeavour.". Haaa. You have to admit that is funny .... you were willing to let the fake evidence and dishonest captions have a pass, because it fit into your religious views.
Evidence is there to be examined, if you think that a particular piece of evidence doesn’t show what it’s claimed then by all means that is a reasonable thing to argue providing your criticism is reasonable and based on just the evidence. If you are right and are successfully convincing then that evidence can be rejected. But in this case however you still won’t get to show that no dinosaurs ever had feathers (or earlier versions of feathers) by doing so.
The opinion of most natural scientists in the field imo is clearly that dinosaurs became birds, such as indicated by my BBC source as an example. If you dispute that then let’s hear exactly why you think so, don’t just assert it. As a matter of fact IIRC I didn’t see any signs of feathers either in that particular image, but I’ve seen many other images of fossils that I find rather convincingly do show feathers. I really don’t see any reason to have to “fake” any evidence presented to Michael and I don’t think anyone was trying to do that.
There is a strong case for feathered dinosaurs to which accepting it or not is the real question, not whether one can perhaps claim somebody is being dishonest about one fossil.
I have no problem accepting a "strong case" that some dinosaurs had feathers, IF there really is a strong case. But if there is a strong case, then why are the two examples provided here both dishonest?
In the example you provided, why didn't you provide information from the research that said this item in amber may not be a feather, and that it may not be from a dinosaur? (Because the BBC did not give you the full information?). Typically evolutionists do not provide all the information because they want people to believe.
As above I don’t think there was any dishonesty. In my case the text I quoted clearly indicated that the general scientific conclusion is that feathered dinosaurs were regarded as factual, while you insisted such opinions were confined to individual bloggers, which is untrue.
I would also expect early feathers to be an earlier form, in the process of evolving from hairs, as apparently was indicated in my link. Your generalising assumptions of what
typically, all “evolutionists’” believe, perhaps says more about your bias and agenda than anyone else’s.
Quote:
6days said:
The BBC article you use is from the journal SCIENCE... What it says about these bits of amber in the article is "Neither avian nor dinosaurian skeletal material has been found in direct association with amber at the Grassy Lake locality...."
Another orintologist,Richard Plum says“The lack of any other remains in the amber—a distinctive bit of bone, say, or a shred of skin—leaves open the possibility that the structures aren't associated with dinosaurs at all.... "
I used that site to demonstrate that you were wrong that such things are only found on individual blog sites. The BBC however is clearly a reputable source with a high visibility that can't afford to have it's reputation tarnished, as no doubt it would be if it didn't present proper robust unbiased and rigorous science in its science sections.
If that is why you used the BBC piece, it miserably failed for two reasons.
1. What "such things" did I say?
Here it is... I said "That fossil has no feathers. I think there are very few if any paleontologists, or other scientists who would make that claim. Claims like that are usually taken off of bloggers evolutionist websites, and not from knowledgeable scientists." Your BBC link is something completely different from the fossil I referred to.
Again the only valid point here is whether evidence exists that some dinosaurs seem to have had feathers, not whether you didn’t find a specific example convincing and was therefore part of a
typical supposed “evolutionist” ploy, instead simply ask for a better one!
2. BBC is not a highly reputable source. They are often dishonest similar to the National Geographic.
Example... Lets use your link..."Dinosaur feather evolution trapped in Canadian amber". Read their article... It does not even hint at the truth that they don't know what animal the 'feather' came from. (It does state that in the original article, but BBC chose not to tell you that part)
You’ve concentrated on one of my links, but I really don’t think you have shown that in any way that the BBC was not using anything but reputable scientific conclusions derived many different sources.
It is after all a public organisation that will quickly find itself under attack from science itself if it is wrong. But I can at least accept that it sometimes needs to popularise its science programs else it wouldn’t get the wide audiences and indeed respect that in fact it does get around the world.
However I really can’t accept that any
typical “evolutionist” fakery agenda is going on in the BBC’s hallowed halls, while much of its output is made for our UK Open University as part of genuine and valid respected degree courses. So as a fair and honest guide to currently accepted science then only a "
typical" YEC might want to knock it perhaps.
lain:
