Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Disproving Creation: The Evolution of Feathers
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Budikka666
Apr 7, 2012, 7:05:05 AM4/7/12
to
Andrew
Apr 7, 2012, 11:43:03 PM4/7/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:a7f76005-aa87-4412...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/04/04/yutyrannus-a-giant-tyrannosaur-with-feathers/
>
> Budikka
From the above site..........................................................:
"Admittedly, there's no direct evidence for a feathery T.rex"
"Yutyrannus's 'feathers' might have been a winter coat."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Folks, dinosaurs did not have feathers. This is actually
part of a grand scientific hoax, as Dr. Olson so stated..
"The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of
birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
scientists..who have become outspoken and highly biased
proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing
of evidence have been among the first casualties in their
program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander
scientific hoaxes of our age - the paleontological equivalent
of cold fusion."
Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560
http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Nov/msg00263.html.
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/04/04/yutyrannus-a-giant-tyrannosaur-with-feathers/
>
> Budikka
From the above site..........................................................:
"Admittedly, there's no direct evidence for a feathery T.rex"
"Yutyrannus's 'feathers' might have been a winter coat."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Folks, dinosaurs did not have feathers. This is actually
part of a grand scientific hoax, as Dr. Olson so stated..
"The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of
birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
scientists..who have become outspoken and highly biased
proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing
of evidence have been among the first casualties in their
program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander
scientific hoaxes of our age - the paleontological equivalent
of cold fusion."
Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560
http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Nov/msg00263.html.
Uirgil
Apr 8, 2012, 12:46:13 AM4/8/12
to
In article <qqidnb6sqMmQlBzS...@earthlink.com>,
presented in support of his claim?
Absent such objective physical evidence, I see no reason to accept his
claim.
Besides which, there are fossilized bits of dinosaur skin showing
feathers.
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> Folks, dinosaurs did not have feathers. This is actually
> part of a grand scientific hoax, as Dr. Olson so stated.
And what sort of objective physical evidence does your "Dr. Olson" have
> Folks, dinosaurs did not have feathers. This is actually
> part of a grand scientific hoax, as Dr. Olson so stated.
presented in support of his claim?
Absent such objective physical evidence, I see no reason to accept his
claim.
Besides which, there are fossilized bits of dinosaur skin showing
feathers.
Devils Advocaat
Apr 8, 2012, 12:41:08 AM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 4:43 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:a7f76005-aa87-4412...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/04/04/yutyran...
particular relative of T. Rex had feathers.
He presented no evidence to support his statements.
Not then.
And not since.
At least not as far as I'm aware.
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:a7f76005-aa87-4412...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/04/04/yutyran...
>
> > Budikka
>
> From the above site..........................................................:
>
> "Admittedly, there's no direct evidence for a feathery T.rex"
Doesn't mean other dinosaurs didn't have feathers.
> > Budikka
>
> From the above site..........................................................:
>
> "Admittedly, there's no direct evidence for a feathery T.rex"
>
> "Yutyrannus's 'feathers' might have been a winter coat."
Even if it were for insulation, the evidence stands that this
> "Yutyrannus's 'feathers' might have been a winter coat."
particular relative of T. Rex had feathers.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Folks, dinosaurs did not have feathers. This is actually
> part of a grand scientific hoax, as Dr. Olson so stated..
>
> "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of
> birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
> scientists..who have become outspoken and highly biased
> proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing
> of evidence have been among the first casualties in their
> program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander
> scientific hoaxes of our age - the paleontological equivalent
> of cold fusion."
>
> Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds
> National Museum of Natural History
> Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Nov/msg00263.html.
Storrs Olson was voicing an opinion.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Folks, dinosaurs did not have feathers. This is actually
> part of a grand scientific hoax, as Dr. Olson so stated..
>
> "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of
> birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
> scientists..who have become outspoken and highly biased
> proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing
> of evidence have been among the first casualties in their
> program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander
> scientific hoaxes of our age - the paleontological equivalent
> of cold fusion."
>
> Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds
> National Museum of Natural History
> Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Nov/msg00263.html.
He presented no evidence to support his statements.
Not then.
And not since.
At least not as far as I'm aware.
JTEM
Apr 8, 2012, 1:42:26 AM4/8/12
to
They did, actually. The only way out of it is
to redefine "dinosaur," something that isn't as
unreasonable as it sounds. But, until such time
we must admit that feathers existed on -- and
probably originated with -- some types of dinosaurs.
> "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of
> birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
> scientists..who have become outspoken and highly biased
> proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing
> of evidence have been among the first casualties in their
> program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander
> scientific hoaxes of our age - the paleontological equivalent
> of cold fusion."
Notice how the above never so much as mentions "evidence,"
never mind refutes any?
It literally says nothing. Nothing. It in no way, shape or
form articulates a case for or against feathers. It is
impossible for anyone but the sickest, most stupid troll to
actually cite the above as somehow supporting a position.
I'll tell you what the problem is: Going back some decades,
it was decided -- more or less decided -- that birds were
cousins to dinosaurs. Many people were raised on this idea,
many dinosaur paleontologists were raised on this idea,
especially the older ones. So, "Birds Are Dinosaurs" literally
rocked their world view.
Today, it is an accepted fact. Some do argue that we need
to change our definition of "Dinosaur" -- what is and is
not included within that definition -- and that may yet turn
out to be the case. I personally doubt it, but it could happen.
Until then, animals we call "Dinosaurs" were the ancestors of
birds.
-- --
Watch this, featuring JTEM!
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/15871139066
to redefine "dinosaur," something that isn't as
unreasonable as it sounds. But, until such time
we must admit that feathers existed on -- and
probably originated with -- some types of dinosaurs.
> "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of
> birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
> scientists..who have become outspoken and highly biased
> proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing
> of evidence have been among the first casualties in their
> program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander
> scientific hoaxes of our age - the paleontological equivalent
> of cold fusion."
never mind refutes any?
It literally says nothing. Nothing. It in no way, shape or
form articulates a case for or against feathers. It is
impossible for anyone but the sickest, most stupid troll to
actually cite the above as somehow supporting a position.
I'll tell you what the problem is: Going back some decades,
it was decided -- more or less decided -- that birds were
cousins to dinosaurs. Many people were raised on this idea,
many dinosaur paleontologists were raised on this idea,
especially the older ones. So, "Birds Are Dinosaurs" literally
rocked their world view.
Today, it is an accepted fact. Some do argue that we need
to change our definition of "Dinosaur" -- what is and is
not included within that definition -- and that may yet turn
out to be the case. I personally doubt it, but it could happen.
Until then, animals we call "Dinosaurs" were the ancestors of
birds.
-- --
Watch this, featuring JTEM!
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/15871139066
Andrew
Apr 8, 2012, 5:52:07 AM4/8/12
to
"JTEM" wrote in message news:fecce943-a3e3-4172...@v22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
> The only way out of it is
> to redefine "dinosaur," something that isn't as
> unreasonable as it sounds.
dinosaur (di'n?sōr) [Gr., = terrible lizard],
Lizards don't have feathers.
> But, until such time we must admit that feathers existed on
> -- and probably originated with -- some types of dinosaurs.
That is, those who are gullible enough to swallow the story
admit it.
>> "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of
>> birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
>> scientists..who have become outspoken and highly biased
>> proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing
>> of evidence have been among the first casualties in their
>> program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander
>> scientific hoaxes of our age - the paleontological equivalent
>> of cold fusion."
>
> Notice how the above never so much as mentions "evidence,"
That's because there is no evidence.
> never mind refutes any?
The scientist above is refuting a hoax.
> It literally says nothing. Nothing. It in no way, shape
> or form articulates a case for or against feathers.
It is a concise statement on the matter.
> It is impossible for anyone but the sickest, most stupid troll to
> actually cite the above as somehow supporting a position.
Do you think using insults helps to support your position?
> I'll tell you what the problem is:
Please.
> Going back some decades, it was decided -- more or
> less decided -- that birds were cousins to dinosaurs.
I see..."It was decided."
"Birds are cousins to dinosaurs."
Yes! That's how it happened.
> Many people were raised on this idea,
Because, "It was decided."
> many dinosaur paleontologists were raised on this idea,
Because, "It was decided."
> especially the older ones.
And they are wise, so why question them?
> So, "Birds Are Dinosaurs" literally
> rocked their world view.
Cool!
> Today, it is an accepted fact.
So that's how it happened?
Now why would anyone argue with an accepted fact?
> Some do argue that we need
> to change our definition of "Dinosaur" -- what is and is
> not included within that definition -- and that may yet turn
> out to be the case. I personally doubt it, but it could happen.
> Until then, animals we call "Dinosaurs" were the ancestors of
> birds.
Because, "It was decided." "Birds Are Dinosaurs"
Thanks for explaining that.
Andrew
"The professors of Darwinism have no limits except those of
their fantasies, and the credulity of those who listen to them."
~ Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> Folks, dinosaurs did not have feathers.
>
> They did, actually.
And why do you think so?
>
>> Folks, dinosaurs did not have feathers.
>
> They did, actually.
> The only way out of it is
> to redefine "dinosaur," something that isn't as
> unreasonable as it sounds.
Lizards don't have feathers.
> But, until such time we must admit that feathers existed on
> -- and probably originated with -- some types of dinosaurs.
admit it.
>> "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of
>> birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
>> scientists..who have become outspoken and highly biased
>> proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing
>> of evidence have been among the first casualties in their
>> program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander
>> scientific hoaxes of our age - the paleontological equivalent
>> of cold fusion."
>
> Notice how the above never so much as mentions "evidence,"
> never mind refutes any?
The scientist above is refuting a hoax.
> It literally says nothing. Nothing. It in no way, shape
> or form articulates a case for or against feathers.
> It is impossible for anyone but the sickest, most stupid troll to
> actually cite the above as somehow supporting a position.
> I'll tell you what the problem is:
> Going back some decades, it was decided -- more or
> less decided -- that birds were cousins to dinosaurs.
"Birds are cousins to dinosaurs."
Yes! That's how it happened.
> Many people were raised on this idea,
> many dinosaur paleontologists were raised on this idea,
> especially the older ones.
And they are wise, so why question them?
> So, "Birds Are Dinosaurs" literally
> rocked their world view.
> Today, it is an accepted fact.
Now why would anyone argue with an accepted fact?
> Some do argue that we need
> to change our definition of "Dinosaur" -- what is and is
> not included within that definition -- and that may yet turn
> out to be the case. I personally doubt it, but it could happen.
> Until then, animals we call "Dinosaurs" were the ancestors of
> birds.
Thanks for explaining that.
Andrew
"The professors of Darwinism have no limits except those of
their fantasies, and the credulity of those who listen to them."
~ Andrew
Free Lunch
Apr 8, 2012, 10:12:00 AM4/8/12
to
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 20:43:03 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
What may have been a legitimate objection over a decade ago may no
longer hold. Do you have his current opinion?
Unlike religions which are run by people who claim that their errors
will never change, scientists will change their minds when they are
presented evidence that shows that they are mistaken. Have you
considered repenting of your false teachings?
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
longer hold. Do you have his current opinion?
Unlike religions which are run by people who claim that their errors
will never change, scientists will change their minds when they are
presented evidence that shows that they are mistaken. Have you
considered repenting of your false teachings?
Free Lunch
Apr 8, 2012, 10:17:13 AM4/8/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 02:52:07 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"JTEM" wrote in message news:fecce943-a3e3-4172...@v22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>> Folks, dinosaurs did not have feathers.
>>
>> They did, actually.
>
>And why do you think so?
>
>> The only way out of it is
>> to redefine "dinosaur," something that isn't as
>> unreasonable as it sounds.
>
>dinosaur (di'n?sōr) [Gr., = terrible lizard],
>
>Lizards don't have feathers.
Dinosaurs are not lizards. Scientists did not change their name after
they discovered that fact.
>> But, until such time we must admit that feathers existed on
>> -- and probably originated with -- some types of dinosaurs.
>
>That is, those who are gullible enough to swallow the story
>admit it.
Since you are never "gullible enough" to accept any scientific facts,
why do you bother to engage in this fight?
to this discussion, yet you are the one who is most adamant in
concluding that scientists have no idea what they are talking about. Why
do you worship your own ignorance?
>> Some do argue that we need
>> to change our definition of "Dinosaur" -- what is and is
>> not included within that definition -- and that may yet turn
>> out to be the case. I personally doubt it, but it could happen.
>> Until then, animals we call "Dinosaurs" were the ancestors of
>> birds.
>
>Because, "It was decided." "Birds Are Dinosaurs"
>
>Thanks for explaining that.
>
>Andrew
>
>"The professors of Darwinism have no limits except those of
> their fantasies, and the credulity of those who listen to them."
> ~ Andrew
>
When you choose to learn, let us know. You are the only one who can hold
yourself in ignorance.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"JTEM" wrote in message news:fecce943-a3e3-4172...@v22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>> Folks, dinosaurs did not have feathers.
>>
>> They did, actually.
>
>And why do you think so?
>
>> The only way out of it is
>> to redefine "dinosaur," something that isn't as
>> unreasonable as it sounds.
>
>dinosaur (di'n?sōr) [Gr., = terrible lizard],
>
>Lizards don't have feathers.
they discovered that fact.
>> But, until such time we must admit that feathers existed on
>> -- and probably originated with -- some types of dinosaurs.
>
>That is, those who are gullible enough to swallow the story
>admit it.
why do you bother to engage in this fight?
>
>>> "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of
>>> birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
>>> scientists..who have become outspoken and highly biased
>>> proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing
>>> of evidence have been among the first casualties in their
>>> program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander
>>> scientific hoaxes of our age - the paleontological equivalent
>>> of cold fusion."
>>
>> Notice how the above never so much as mentions "evidence,"
>
>That's because there is no evidence.
Did you read the article?
>>> "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of
>>> birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
>>> scientists..who have become outspoken and highly biased
>>> proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing
>>> of evidence have been among the first casualties in their
>>> program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander
>>> scientific hoaxes of our age - the paleontological equivalent
>>> of cold fusion."
>>
>> Notice how the above never so much as mentions "evidence,"
>
>That's because there is no evidence.
>
>> never mind refutes any?
>
>The scientist above is refuting a hoax.
That letter was written 13 years ago.
>> never mind refutes any?
>
>The scientist above is refuting a hoax.
>
>> It literally says nothing. Nothing. It in no way, shape
>> or form articulates a case for or against feathers.
>
>It is a concise statement on the matter.
>
>> It is impossible for anyone but the sickest, most stupid troll to
>> actually cite the above as somehow supporting a position.
>
>Do you think using insults helps to support your position?
>
>> I'll tell you what the problem is:
>
>Please.
>
>> Going back some decades, it was decided -- more or
>> less decided -- that birds were cousins to dinosaurs.
>
>I see..."It was decided."
Scientists concluded based on the evidence available at the time.
>> It literally says nothing. Nothing. It in no way, shape
>> or form articulates a case for or against feathers.
>
>It is a concise statement on the matter.
>
>> It is impossible for anyone but the sickest, most stupid troll to
>> actually cite the above as somehow supporting a position.
>
>Do you think using insults helps to support your position?
>
>> I'll tell you what the problem is:
>
>Please.
>
>> Going back some decades, it was decided -- more or
>> less decided -- that birds were cousins to dinosaurs.
>
>I see..."It was decided."
>
>"Birds are cousins to dinosaurs."
>
>Yes! That's how it happened.
>
>> Many people were raised on this idea,
>
>Because, "It was decided."
>
>> many dinosaur paleontologists were raised on this idea,
>
>Because, "It was decided."
>
>> especially the older ones.
>
>And they are wise, so why question them?
>
>> So, "Birds Are Dinosaurs" literally
>> rocked their world view.
>
>Cool!
>
>> Today, it is an accepted fact.
>
>So that's how it happened?
>
>Now why would anyone argue with an accepted fact?
You are the one who has absolutely no knowledge of the evidence related
>"Birds are cousins to dinosaurs."
>
>Yes! That's how it happened.
>
>> Many people were raised on this idea,
>
>Because, "It was decided."
>
>> many dinosaur paleontologists were raised on this idea,
>
>Because, "It was decided."
>
>> especially the older ones.
>
>And they are wise, so why question them?
>
>> So, "Birds Are Dinosaurs" literally
>> rocked their world view.
>
>Cool!
>
>> Today, it is an accepted fact.
>
>So that's how it happened?
>
>Now why would anyone argue with an accepted fact?
to this discussion, yet you are the one who is most adamant in
concluding that scientists have no idea what they are talking about. Why
do you worship your own ignorance?
>> Some do argue that we need
>> to change our definition of "Dinosaur" -- what is and is
>> not included within that definition -- and that may yet turn
>> out to be the case. I personally doubt it, but it could happen.
>> Until then, animals we call "Dinosaurs" were the ancestors of
>> birds.
>
>Because, "It was decided." "Birds Are Dinosaurs"
>
>Thanks for explaining that.
>
>Andrew
>
>"The professors of Darwinism have no limits except those of
> their fantasies, and the credulity of those who listen to them."
> ~ Andrew
>
yourself in ignorance.
Devils Advocaat
Apr 8, 2012, 10:27:31 AM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 3:12 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 20:43:03 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
His opinion may have changed, but I cannot find anything on the
Internet about his current views.
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 20:43:03 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:a7f76005-aa87-4412...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/04/04/yutyran...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:a7f76005-aa87-4412...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Internet about his current views.
JTEM
Apr 8, 2012, 3:17:50 PM4/8/12
to
I don't have to think about it, not with all
the fossil finds.
> dinosaur (di'n?sôr) [Gr., = terrible lizard],
> The scientist above is refuting a hoax.
My guess is that you're a troll, and that you're
not actually so stupid that you don't know the
proper use of the word "Refute."
> > Going back some decades, it was decided -- more or
> > less decided -- that birds were cousins to dinosaurs.
>
> I see..."It was decided."
Yup. They had very little evidence to go on, could see
the obvious similarities, but couldn't imagine that the
one could be descended from the other. They needed a
lot more evidence.
> "Birds are cousins to dinosaurs."
>
> Yes! That's how it happened.
That was the explanation -- the popular explanation.
Yes.
None of this is top-secret if that's what you're
thinking. It's not hidden.
> > Many people were raised on this idea,
>
> Because, "It was decided."
Yup. Like I said, there wasn't a lot of evidence.
Even Archeopteryx could be said to have fit the
early model, before all the additional evidence.
It turned up fairly early with full-blown flight
feathers, suggesting that it itself was the
descendent of a much earlier split from the
Dinosaurs...
> > many dinosaur paleontologists were raised on this idea,
>
> Because, "It was decided."
Exactly. The lack of evidence outweighed the evidence, but
conclusions were drawn anyway.
> > especially the older ones.
>
> And they are wise, so why question them?
Because the situation changed. Even just from 1999
to today the picture has changed significantly.
Looking back at 1999, although it could be argued
that it certainly LOOKED like Birds were direct
descendents of a particular type of Dinosaur, the
answer had not yet been sealed. There was still
wiggle room -- the potential for an alternative
however, so slight.
> > Today, it is an accepted fact.
>
> So that's how it happened?
That's how it always happens: As more and more
evidence is uncovered, one view rises above all
others until, finally, it becomes fact.
> Now why would anyone argue with an accepted fact?
Humans are emotional animals, not intellectual ones.
People frequently -- perhaps even most often -- make
emotional decisions.
> Because, "It was decided." "Birds Are Dinosaurs"
No, troll, the evidence decided.
the fossil finds.
> dinosaur (di'n?sôr) [Gr., = terrible lizard],
>
> Lizards don't have feathers.
You've confused the name of a thing for the thing.
> Lizards don't have feathers.
> The scientist above is refuting a hoax.
not actually so stupid that you don't know the
proper use of the word "Refute."
> > Going back some decades, it was decided -- more or
> > less decided -- that birds were cousins to dinosaurs.
>
> I see..."It was decided."
the obvious similarities, but couldn't imagine that the
one could be descended from the other. They needed a
lot more evidence.
> "Birds are cousins to dinosaurs."
>
> Yes! That's how it happened.
Yes.
None of this is top-secret if that's what you're
thinking. It's not hidden.
> > Many people were raised on this idea,
>
> Because, "It was decided."
Even Archeopteryx could be said to have fit the
early model, before all the additional evidence.
It turned up fairly early with full-blown flight
feathers, suggesting that it itself was the
descendent of a much earlier split from the
Dinosaurs...
> > many dinosaur paleontologists were raised on this idea,
>
> Because, "It was decided."
conclusions were drawn anyway.
> > especially the older ones.
>
> And they are wise, so why question them?
to today the picture has changed significantly.
Looking back at 1999, although it could be argued
that it certainly LOOKED like Birds were direct
descendents of a particular type of Dinosaur, the
answer had not yet been sealed. There was still
wiggle room -- the potential for an alternative
however, so slight.
> > Today, it is an accepted fact.
>
> So that's how it happened?
evidence is uncovered, one view rises above all
others until, finally, it becomes fact.
> Now why would anyone argue with an accepted fact?
People frequently -- perhaps even most often -- make
emotional decisions.
> Because, "It was decided." "Birds Are Dinosaurs"
Uirgil
Apr 8, 2012, 4:13:18 PM4/8/12
to
In article <OKednXEpspcRwhzS...@earthlink.com>,
But that is not a formal definition of what paleontology means by the
word.
suits their prejudices will reject even the most objective physical
evidence.
evidence.
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "JTEM" wrote in message
> news:fecce943-a3e3-4172...@v22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >
> >> Folks, dinosaurs did not have feathers.
Were you dere, chollie? Unless you were, you cannot be sure.
> "JTEM" wrote in message
> news:fecce943-a3e3-4172...@v22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >
> >> Folks, dinosaurs did not have feathers.
> >
> > They did, actually.
>
> And why do you think so?
At least some fossils show dinosaur skins with feathering.
> > They did, actually.
>
> And why do you think so?
>
> > The only way out of it is
> > to redefine "dinosaur," something that isn't as
> > unreasonable as it sounds.
>
> dinosaur (di'n?sôr) [Gr., = terrible lizard],
> > The only way out of it is
> > to redefine "dinosaur," something that isn't as
> > unreasonable as it sounds.
>
But that is not a formal definition of what paleontology means by the
word.
>
> Lizards don't have feathers.
The lizards of today are not dinosaurs, either!
> Lizards don't have feathers.
>
> > But, until such time we must admit that feathers existed on
> > -- and probably originated with -- some types of dinosaurs.
>
> That is, those who are gullible enough to swallow the story
> admit it.
Those who are gullible to deny the evidence of fossils when it does not
> > But, until such time we must admit that feathers existed on
> > -- and probably originated with -- some types of dinosaurs.
>
> That is, those who are gullible enough to swallow the story
> admit it.
suits their prejudices will reject even the most objective physical
evidence.
>
> >> "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of
> >> birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
> >> scientists.
Nope! Only of scientists who are following the objective physical
> >> "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of
> >> birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
> >> scientists.
evidence.
>
> > It literally says nothing. Nothing. It in no way, shape
> > or form articulates a case for or against feathers.
>
> It is a concise statement on the matter.
However concise, yours is still a false statement.
> > It literally says nothing. Nothing. It in no way, shape
> > or form articulates a case for or against feathers.
>
> It is a concise statement on the matter.
Burkhard
Apr 8, 2012, 4:49:28 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 10:52 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "JTEM" wrote in messagenews:fecce943-a3e3-4172...@v22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
The most recent can be checked here:
Xing Xu et all: A gigantic feathered dinosaur from the Lower
Cretaceous of China. Nature
484, (2012) pp. 92–95
The Dino in question is a close relative to T-Rex
and here is another species whose find precedes the latest one;
Xu, X., Norell, M. A., Kuang, X., Wang, X., Zhao, Q., Jia, C. (2004).
"Basal tyrannosauroids from China and evidence for protofeathers in
tyrannosauroids". Nature 431: 680–684
>
> > The only way out of it is
> > to redefine "dinosaur," something that isn't as
> > unreasonable as it sounds.
>
> dinosaur (di'n?sôr) [Gr., = terrible lizard],
>
> > But, until such time we must admit that feathers existed on
> > -- and probably originated with -- some types of dinosaurs.
>
> That is, those who are gullible enough to swallow the story
> admit it.
>
> >> "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of
> >> birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
> >> scientists..who have become outspoken and highly biased
> >> proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing
> >> of evidence have been among the first casualties in their
> >> program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander
> >> scientific hoaxes of our age - the paleontological equivalent
> >> of cold fusion."
>
> > Notice how the above never so much as mentions "evidence,"
>
> That's because there is no evidence.
>
> > never mind refutes any?
>
> The scientist above is refuting a hoax.
>
Then you should be able to show the evidence he is using to refute it.
> "JTEM" wrote in messagenews:fecce943-a3e3-4172...@v22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> Folks, dinosaurs did not have feathers.
>
> > They did, actually.
>
> And why do you think so?
Because there is pretty strong evidence for it in the fossil record.
>
> >> Folks, dinosaurs did not have feathers.
>
> > They did, actually.
>
> And why do you think so?
The most recent can be checked here:
Xing Xu et all: A gigantic feathered dinosaur from the Lower
Cretaceous of China. Nature
484, (2012) pp. 92–95
The Dino in question is a close relative to T-Rex
and here is another species whose find precedes the latest one;
Xu, X., Norell, M. A., Kuang, X., Wang, X., Zhao, Q., Jia, C. (2004).
"Basal tyrannosauroids from China and evidence for protofeathers in
tyrannosauroids". Nature 431: 680–684
>
> > The only way out of it is
> > to redefine "dinosaur," something that isn't as
> > unreasonable as it sounds.
>
>
> Lizards don't have feathers.
Empirical questions can't be solved by etymology.
> Lizards don't have feathers.
>
> > But, until such time we must admit that feathers existed on
> > -- and probably originated with -- some types of dinosaurs.
>
> That is, those who are gullible enough to swallow the story
> admit it.
>
> >> "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of
> >> birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous
> >> scientists..who have become outspoken and highly biased
> >> proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing
> >> of evidence have been among the first casualties in their
> >> program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander
> >> scientific hoaxes of our age - the paleontological equivalent
> >> of cold fusion."
>
> > Notice how the above never so much as mentions "evidence,"
>
> That's because there is no evidence.
>
> > never mind refutes any?
>
> The scientist above is refuting a hoax.
>
0 new messages