Interesting find that further shows the relation between dinosaurs and birds

[Jose Fly]

Um, just because somebody is a professor doesn't make him king of the hill. Science DOESN'T work this way.

No one has said otherwise.

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.

???????? I'm starting to think that you really have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.

"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.

Yep, that settles it....you have no idea what I've been talking about. I'll give it one more shot....

You've claimed that your brother, who is a professional scientist, has reservations, doubts, and/or is generally skeptical about some aspects of evolutionary biology. My response to that is....so what?

If your brother truly believes he has a genuine scientific case against parts of evolutionary biology, why isn't he presenting that case to his colleagues? He could give a presentation at a conference, or write up a manuscript and send it to a journal.

As long as he keeps these reservations/doubts to himself and doesn't share them with other scientists, they will remain scientifically irrelevant. Do you understand that part? I'm not saying he has to present it as a firm conclusion or overstep anything. If he really is a scientist, then he knows how the process works.

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.

No one is saying he has to "jump the gun". All he has to do is present his position in a professional setting, like a conference or a manuscript. Then he gets feedback from his colleagues and is expected to respond.

It seems you're trying to have it both ways. You want to cite your brother and his views as authoritative, but you also want to shield him and his views from any scientific scrutiny.

Sounds a bit cowardly to me.

It is 'speculated' that dinosaurs came from birds. Now everyone is publishing their findings way way before they can deliver.

First, it's birds from dinosaurs. Second, I'd bet your knowledge on the subject of theropod/avian shared ancestry is severely lacking, so your opinions on the subject will be taken for what they are.....some anonymous guy on the internet ranting about a subject he knows nothing about.

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?

Are you truly curious and are interested in the answers, or are you just trying to "stump the evolutionist"?

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.

Not everyone thinks in such ridiculous black/white terms, where if something isn't 100% absolutely perfect every time, it must not be at all reliable.

Also, wouldn't a good way to identify and expose "bias and politicking in science" be to increase the level of transparency in the process? Yet you're arguing for the opposite.

Peer review doesn't have to be published. Who made that rule?

Um.......?????????? So I guess scientists can share their methods and findings with each other by.....psychic powers? And given that one of the justifications for publishing papers is transparency in science, it's bizarre to see you, someone who believes science is a conspiracy, advocating for science to be less transparent and more secretive.

Didn't really think that through, did you? :chuckle:

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.

Your ignorance of the very basics of science would be less notable, if you weren't going around acting like you're an authority in it.

Dunning-Kruger in spades.

 

[Stripe]

No one has said otherwise.

Except that "consensus" is the Darwinist's immediate reaction every time they come across someone who does not buy their religion.

You've claimed that your brother, who is a professional scientist, has reservations, doubts, and/or is generally skeptical about some aspects of evolutionary biology. My response to that is....so what? If your brother truly believes he has a genuine scientific case against parts of evolutionary biology, why isn't he presenting that case to his colleagues? He could give a presentation at a conference, or write up a manuscript and send it to a journal.

Darwinists love believing that people have to jump through their hoops before their input should be considered.

This man has no obligation to do anything you demand before Lon is justified in presenting his ideas.

As long as he keeps these reservations/doubts to himself and doesn't share them with other scientists, they will remain scientifically irrelevant.

Nope.

Ideas are always justified, regardless of their source and regardless of how they are used.

Do you understand that part? There is no "process." Ideas are sourced from anywhere, go anywhere, do anything. There is no restriction on what a man can say.

It's only when Darwinists feel threatened that suddenly there are restrictions on ideas.

If you really were a scientist, you would not be so fearful that someone speaks things you do not agree with.

All he has to do is present his position in a professional setting, like a conference or a manuscript. Then he gets feedback from his colleagues and is expected to respond.

Clearly, he has shared his ideas. Now you're making up hoops for Lon to jump through. All this is devoted to your agenda that the evidence be ignored. Darwinists love talking about anything but that.

Sounds a bit cowardly to me.

Or you're just some anonymous guy on the Internet ranting about a subject he knows nothing about.

Are you truly curious and interested in the answers?

If something isn't 100% absolutely perfect every time, it must not be at all reliable.

Straw man arguments are logical fallacies. Try to engage with what people say, not with what you wish they had said.

Your ignorance of the very basics of science would be less notable if you weren't going around acting like you're an authority in them. Dunning-Kruger in spades.

 

[Jose Fly]

This man has no obligation to do anything you demand before Lon is justified in presenting his ideas.

You're mistaken. I never said Lon's brother had to do anything before Lon could post his ideas here. Rather, my point is that as long as Lon's brother keeps his ideas to himself, they will remain scientifically irrelevant.

After all, how is the scientific community supposed to become aware of and consider these ideas if no one ever presents them to them?

Clearly, he has shared his ideas.

No, he hasn't.

 

[Stripe]

You're mistaken. I never said Lon's brother had to do anything before Lon could post his ideas here. Rather, my point is that as long as Lon's brother keeps his ideas to himself, they will remain scientifically irrelevant.

After all, how is the scientific community supposed to become aware of and consider these ideas if no one ever presents them to them?



No, he hasn't.

Which is wrong as well. But you're just desperate to talk about anything to avoid having to face up to evidence.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Daniel1769]

The vast majority of all dinosaur finds are very few bones, or teeth, and the rest is constructed from that. A tooth can be discovered and from that, can be constructed into a new species of dinosaur. Most of the numerous "species" of dinosaurs are constructed from single bones or teeth.

 

[Jose Fly]

Which is wrong as well.

Huh....I didn't realize that if you keep your views to yourself it doesn't prevent others from considering them.

:chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

Huh....I didn't realize that if you keep your views to yourself it doesn't prevent others from considering them.

Darwinists will seek anything to talk about, as long as it is not evidence.

 

[6days]

*And as you also know, we are 100% positive that feathered dinosaurs existed and were the norm, as evidenced by the recent Amber tail

Evolutionists are often 100% positive on various 'talking points', *until science proves them wrong.*

I asked Greg, which dinosaur he was positive had feathers... no response.

It matters to evolutionists since they believe feathers evolved. That is often why articles *on dinosaurs talk about feathers.*

The Bible does not tell us if any dinosaurs had feathers. It does not say; and does not matter. *However, it is amusing the claims that are sometimes made by evolutionists to feather a dinosaur.*

National Geographic has had egg on its face in the past promoting a feathered dinosaur...which turned out to be a hoax of glued together bones from 2 different creatures. Their most recent attempt at selling evolutionism ... and more magazines is not via a hoax. However, it is overly zealous in its interpretation of dinosaur feathers. The small ball of amber does seem to have feathers and part of a tail vertebrae. But how does N.G. determine the bones belong to a dino and not a bird?... leaps of lizard 'logic'!

National Geographic reasons that the vertebrae bones are are from a tail...it might have had 25 vertebrae in this tail... and birds don't have long bony tails....therefore this is a feathered dino.*

Facts though.....
The amber contains 2 only clearly delineated vertebrae..... they say there could be 8 or 9 vertebrae in the amber, and based on the 8 or 9 vertebrae that MAY be in the amber, they say this creature may have had more than 25 tail vertebrae. Really?? (Ladies and gentlemen...this is not observational science)

Also, National Geographic neglects to tell the reader some important info. They present this amber as if its evidence of a transitional between dino and bird dating it at 99 million years. However evolutionists have dated real birds at 153 million years. Oh well..... plasticity is the name of the game with evolutionist explanations.

Another important fact NG fails to tell the reader is that birds can have long bony tails. (Archaeopteryx had over tail 20 vertebrae)

Whatever this creature was...as Christians we know it is a creature created by God, that reproduced after its kind. The amber itself is likely from the time of the flood, about 4500 years ago.*

 

[Greg Jennings]

Evolutionists are often 100% positive on various 'talking points', *until science proves them wrong.*

I asked Greg, which dinosaur he was positive had feathers... no response.

It matters to evolutionists since they believe feathers evolved. That is often why articles *on dinosaurs talk about feathers.*

The Bible does not tell us if any dinosaurs had feathers. It does not say; and does not matter. *However, it is amusing the claims that are sometimes made by evolutionists to feather a dinosaur.*

National Geographic has had egg on its face in the past promoting a feathered dinosaur...which turned out to be a hoax of glued together bones from 2 different creatures. Their most recent attempt at selling evolutionism ... and more magazines is not via a hoax. However, it is overly zealous in its interpretation of dinosaur feathers. The small ball of amber does seem to have feathers and part of a tail vertebrae. But how does N.G. determine the bones belong to a dino and not a bird?... leaps of lizard 'logic'!

National Geographic reasons that the vertebrae bones are are from a tail...it might have had 25 vertebrae in this tail... and birds don't have long bony tails....therefore this is a feathered dino.*

Facts though.....
The amber contains 2 only clearly delineated vertebrae..... they say there could be 8 or 9 vertebrae in the amber, and based on the 8 or 9 vertebrae that MAY be in the amber, they say this creature may have had more than 25 tail vertebrae. Really?? (Ladies and gentlemen...this is not observational science)

Also, National Geographic neglects to tell the reader some important info. They present this amber as if its evidence of a transitional between dino and bird dating it at 99 million years. However evolutionists have dated real birds at 153 million years. Oh well..... plasticity is the name of the game with evolutionist explanations.

Another important fact NG fails to tell the reader is that birds can have long bony tails. (Archaeopteryx had over tail 20 vertebrae)

Whatever this creature was...as Christians we know it is a creature created by God, that reproduced after its kind. The amber itself is likely from the time of the flood, about 4500 years ago.*

Since you are still unconvinced that dinosaurs had feathers....

Article about velociraptor cousin with feathers:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-fossil-reveals-velociraptor-sported-feathers/

Actual photo of the skeleton, feathered exterior visible:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/071615_Conversation.jpg

Tell me, 6days: does that look sort of like a transition between a dinosaur and a bird? It's a raptor with bird wings/tail! What more could you ever ask for?

I look forward to your next excuse


Over 30 species of carnivorous dinosaurs have been CONFIRMED to have sported feathers, and done herbivorous species did as well

 

[Greg Jennings]

Yep.

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


We knew you weren't talking about a crater.


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

Popularity is not an argument.

Of course it exists.

Of course it is not necessarily a crater.

:darwinsm:


Darwinists hate reading.

So you can avoid scrutiny of your nonsense?



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

When you tell me how you think sedimentary rocks are created, we can progress. I'm not dealing with your dodges

 

[6days]

*Since you are still unconvinced that dinosaurs had feathers....

Correct....I'm unconvinced. I said its possible. The Bible does not tell us if dinosaurs had feathers.

*
Article about velociraptor cousin with feathers:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...rted-feathers/
Tell me, 6days: does that look sort of like a transition between a dinosaur and a bird?

*

No...it looks like a bird. In fact your link says "If you could see it alive you would probably make no distinction between it and, say, a turkey or a vulture."

And as far as transitional... no. Fully feathered flying birds (feather structure same as todays birds), existed more than 25 million years earlier...according to evolutionists.

 

[Stripe]

When you tell me how you think sedimentary rocks are created, we can progress. I'm not dealing with your dodges

When you admit that floods and tsunami don't make them, we can proceed. :up:

 

[Greg Jennings]

When you admit that floods and tsunami don't make them, we can proceed. :up:

You were the one saying that dinosaurs being "frozen in rock" was evidence of a global flood!


At any rate, conglomerates (as previously mentioned to you) are the result of the compaction of rock fragments transported by water, sometimes in a flood or seismic event.
I would count that as being formed by floods

 

[Greg Jennings]

Correct....I'm unconvinced. I said its possible. The Bible does not tell us if dinosaurs had feathers.
*

No...it looks like a bird. In fact your link says "If you could see it alive you would probably make no distinction between it and, say, a turkey or a vulture."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/071615_Conversation.jpg

Are you serious? You can see the dang teeth! Look at the toes! Those aren't bird feet! Birds don't have a middle toe modified to stab, and they certainly don't have hands with three fingers on them. How many birds are you aware of that have a long bony tail?


Where does your absurd denial end?

 

[Stripe]

You were the one saying that dinosaurs being "frozen in rock" was evidence of a global flood!

Yep.

And you implied that flash floods and tsunami can make rocks. I have reasons behind the singular event of Noah's flood being the source of sedimentary rocks. There is no mechanism that allows floods and tsunami today to do anything remotely similar. which is why I called you out on the fact.

At any rate, conglomerates (as previously mentioned to you) are the result of the compaction of rock fragments transported by water, sometimes in a flood or seismic event. I would count that as being formed by floods

Then you'll be able to show us one that formed in a recent flood. :thumb:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Yep.

And you implied that flash floods and tsunami can make rocks. I have reasons behind the singular event of Noah's flood being the source of sedimentary rocks. There is no mechanism that allows floods and tsunami today to do anything remotely similar. which is why I called you out on the fact.

Explain how Noah's flood would form sedimentary rocks

Then you'll be able to show us one that formed in a recent flood. :thumb:

Go to any alluvial deposit. There will be conglomerates there. And they form daily. They won't be huge deposits like we see with conglomerates that accumulated over millions of years in eras past, but they will still be there and easily recognizable. Some were certainly formed when the water breached its banks, otherwise known as a flood. If you accept that conglomerates form via flowing water (an established fact), then why would they not form due to flooding, especially flash flooding? It's the same thing!

So.....do you want me to go take a picture of one next to the year it was "made" and send it to you? How else could I "show you one formed in the last ten years"? What exactly are you asking for?


So now that you know what I think, how do YOU think conglomerates form?

 

[Stripe]

Explain how Noah's flood would form sedimentary rocks

Explain how a tsunami could.

Go to any alluvial deposit. There will be conglomerates there. And they form daily. They won't be huge deposits like we see with conglomerates that accumulated over millions of years in eras past, but they will still be there and easily recognizable. Some were certainly formed when the water breached its banks, otherwise known as a flood. If you accept that conglomerates form via flowing water (an established fact), then why would they not form due to flooding, especially flash flooding? It's the same thing! So.....do you want me to go take a picture of one next to the year it was "made" and send it to you? How else could I "show you one formed in the last ten years"? What exactly are you asking for? So now that you know what I think, how do YOU think conglomerates form?

Finding small pieces of rocks piling up in one place is not a sedimentary layer. There are three ingredients required. Every river has two in enough volume, but the third is missing.

 

[6days]

Tell me, 6days: does that look sort of like a transition between a dinosaur and a bird?

No...it looks like a bird. In fact your link says "If you could see it alive you would probably make no distinction between it and, say, a turkey or a vulture."

Are you serious?

*

It is a quote from your link.

*You can see the dang teeth!

Yes,*very nice! How do you like these teeth compared to other extinct birds that had teeth? I see one article describes them as "decent".*

Look at the toes! Those aren't bird feet!

There are many unique designs of birds feet. Look at differences between an owl and a penguin; or a woodpecker and a wren.*

Birds don't have a middle toe modified to stab

Sure they do. various articles compare velociraptor claws to that of eagles and hawks (raptors).

Most raptors have a hallux; a back claw that 'stabs' its prey. *Some birds can even rotate one front claw around to the back. There is a great diversity of designs.*

and they certainly don't have hands with three fingers on them.

I like this quote from an evolutionist, discussing ostrich (bird) fingers. "Apparently, many dinosaurs developed very specialized, almost unique ‘hands’ for grasping and raking".*http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/aug02/feduccia082602.htm

We could also say that unique and specialized features are consistent with an omniscient creator. ... and that there is no evidence these unique, specialized 'hands' evolved.

How many birds are you aware of that have a long bony tail?

Not many... Some modern birds do have shorter bony tail with vertebrae. There are some extinct birds with long bony tails.*

 

[Greg Jennings]

*

It is a quote from your link.

Yes,*very nice! How do you like these teeth compared to other extinct birds that had teeth? I see one article describes them as "decent".*

There are many unique designs of birds feet. Look at differences between an owl and a penguin; or a woodpecker and a wren.*

Sure they do. various articles compare velociraptor claws to that of eagles and hawks (raptors).

Most raptors have a hallux; a back claw that 'stabs' its prey. *Some birds can even rotate one front claw around to the back. There is a great diversity of designs.*

I like this quote from an evolutionist, discussing ostrich (bird) fingers. "Apparently, many dinosaurs developed very specialized, almost unique ‘hands’ for grasping and raking".*http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/aug02/feduccia082602.htm

We could also say that unique and specialized features are consistent with an omniscient creator. ... and that there is no evidence these unique, specialized 'hands' evolved.

Not many... Some modern birds do have shorter bony tail with vertebrae. There are some extinct birds with long bony tails.*

I don't have a problem with the quote. I have a problem with you reading it and seein it as, "this isn't a dinosaur," when it clearly says that it is.

You just can't be serious. You see an animal with a long bony tail, a dinosaur head with teeth and no beak, two feathered arms with three claws apiece, and a conclusion by scientists THAT THIS IS A VELOCIRAPTOR......

And in order to protect your religious ideology, you say, "it's a bird!" while denying that birds and dinosaurs are related.

Some people are just too delusional or stubborn to get anywhere with. You are one of the two. Or maybe you can tell me what separates the "dinosaur kind" from the "bird kind"? Since according to you both dinosaurs and birds have feathers, teeth, long bony tails, and lack beaks.......how does your biblical model make a distinction between the two? Aren't they the same "kind"?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Explain how a tsunami could.

I'm not answering anymore questions you ask while dodging one of mine. You want an answer from me? Be an adult and have a conversation. Answer the question posed to you without dodging

Finding small pieces of rocks piling up in one place is not a sedimentary layer. There are three ingredients required. Every river has two in enough volume, but the third is missing.

Those small pieces of rock are the entire makeup of a conglomerate. Mineral cement sticks the grains together. You can break apart many conglomerates with your hands. Of course, ancient conglomerates will be significantly harder