Why do evolutionists have to lie to support evolution?

[PlastikBuddha]

Yes, yes, you mean the great minds that found what they say "may" and "possibly' be feathers which lead to this "scientific" drawing of a close relative of the velociraptor?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Deinonychus-antirrhopus_jconway.jpg

Yes, this drawing of a BIRD is supposed to be this DINOSAUR, the Deinonychus.

http://www.markus-schuster.net/science/deinonychus1.jpg

However, they found a couple of "feather-like" remains on Sinornithosaurus and Microraptor fossils, and decided all dromaesaurids where feathered. Turning a vicious predator into a cuddly, little penguin-buddy all on a whim.

Once again, STUPID and UNSCIENTIFIC assumptions made so evolution can look just a little less dumb.

Science is a process, dimwit. It makes false steps and corrects those. We call it progress. There are plenty of feathered dinosaur remains found that assuming their existance is neither stupid nor wrong. You're showcasing your ignorance as though it were something to be proud of. Well, good job, chowderhead. Go stick your certificate of imbecility to the refrigerator- hint, the magnet goes on this side.

 

[`Love.]

Science is a process, dimwit. It makes false steps and corrects those. We call it progress. There are plenty of feathered dinosaur remains found that assuming their existance is neither stupid nor wrong. You're showcasing your ignorance as though it were something to be proud of. Well, good job, chowderhead. Go stick your certificate of imbecility to the refrigerator- hint, the magnet goes on this side.

Putting feathers on an animal that has never been found to have feathers and then saying the animal always had feathers is very very false, and to my knowledge has not been corrected. Should I assume because there are plenty of land-dwelling mammals, a whale is also one? No, because a whale does not live, to our knowlegde, on land just as that dinosaur does not, to our knowledge, have feathers. Anything more is assumption just like your ridiculous ones about my intellect.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Putting feathers on an animal that has never been found to have feathers and then saying the animal always had feathers is very very false, and to my knowledge has not been corrected. Should I assume because there are plenty of land-dwelling mammals, a whale is also one? No, because a whale does not live, to our knowlegde, on land just as that dinosaur does not, to our knowledge, have feathers. Anything more is assumption just like your ridiculous ones about my intellect.

If you don't want people to assume you are an idiot don't act like one. If you're not an idiot step up to the plate and show us. There is a lot of evidence for feathered therapods. On what are you basing your abrupt dismissal? Dinosaur feathers are not mere conjecture but confirmed by many specimens. What on Earth are you trying to say bringing whales into this, anyways? Trying to bring the marvelous series of transitional fossils that represent the shift from land to sea dweller?

 

[`Love.]

I think my comparisson to the whale was obvious, but if you want to twist it, go ahead. No matter what feathers were found on other therapods, there were no feathers found on this therapod. Feathers on serveral dromaesaurids don't make all dromaesaurids feathered. It's also not even a "maybe" in the science world, it's considered scientific fact that Deinonychus had feathers, just because of feathers on OTHER dinosaurs. I'm sorry, but when one of the biggest ideas you are out to prove is that dinosaurs evolved into birds, putting feathers on every dinosaur you see seems a little convienent.

I'd like to add that putting feathers on a dinosaur that has never been found with feathers is not only misleading, but it could prevent further scientific research by covering up the true nature of the Deinonychus. You can't just add whatever you want to fossils, scientists learned this before with the Brontosaurus.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I think my comparisson to the whale was obvious, but if you want to twist it, go ahead. No matter what feathers were found on other therapods, there were no feathers found on this therapod. Feathers on serveral dromaesaurids don't make all dromaesaurids feathered. It's also not even a "maybe" in the science world, it's considered scientific fact that Deinonychus had feathers, just because of feathers on OTHER dinosaurs. I'm sorry, but when one of the biggest ideas you are out to prove is that dinosaurs evolved into birds, putting feathers on every dinosaur you see seems a little convienent.

So you don't deny that some dinosaurs had feathers? Super- that's all I needed to hear.

I'd like to add that putting feathers on a dinosaur that has never been found with feathers is not only misleading, but it could prevent further scientific research by covering up the true nature of the Deinonychus. You can't just add whatever you want to fossils, scientists learned this before with the Brontosaurus.

That's true- and fortunately as our samples become more numerous we will have increasingly accurate information and false steps will be corrected. Rebuilding specimens is difficult and it is inevitable that mistakes will be made. The self-coreecting nature of scientific inquiry makes these temporary.