Guardians of Science...

[In situ]

I wonder when Ken Ham plans to update his dinosaurs in his Man vs Dinosaur exhibition, reflecting the latest research, with feathered dinosaurs. Or do Ken Ham plan to continue with his denial that dinosaurs has feathers until honest creationists starts wonder why this Last Outpost of Science does not present "all the evidence" so we can "judge for ourselves" - I mean nobody wants to believe in evolution, we want evidence right?

 

[juvenissun]

View attachment 171966

This is the evidence of what?

 

[Herman Hedning]

This is the evidence of what?

If your objection is "Artist's Impression", then maybe an actual fossil showing clear feather impressions works better?

 

[juvenissun]

If your objection is "Artist's Impression", then maybe an actual fossil showing clear feather impressions works better?

This is an evidence of what?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is an evidence of what?

Of dinosaurs having feathers.

 

[Papias]

If your objection is "Artist's Impression", then maybe an actual fossil showing clear feather impressions works better?

Here's another. This is perhaps the most famous and influential fossil ever found. It was found in 1875, at the time when evolution actually was controversial.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are animals mentioned in the Bible that science cannot explain.

I'm not going to assume this thing has been classified correctly -- especially if it contradicts Scripture.

 

[juvenissun]

Of dinosaurs having feathers.

So?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So?

And it is evidence that certain therapod dinosaurs evolved in to birds.

 

[Abraxos]

Here's another. This is perhaps the most famous and influential fossil ever found. It was found in 1875, at the time when evolution actually was controversial.

And it is evidence that certain therapod dinosaurs evolved in to birds.

False. It was already determined that this was a bird years ago.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_06.html

Shoot to 1:30.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

False. It was already determined that this was a bird years ago.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_06.html

Shoot to 1:30.

It's a transitional species between therapod dinosaurs and birds.
Perhaps you can show me what features the archeopteryx has that only birds have that therapods don't have.

 

[Abraxos]

It's a transitional species between therapod dinosaurs and birds.
Perhaps you can show me what features the archeopteryx has that only birds have that therapods don't have.

Paleontologist Robert Carroll:
"The geometry of the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx is identical with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. The way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the range of modern birds…"

In the link. Can't read?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Paleontologist Robert Carroll:
"The geometry of the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx is identical with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. The way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the range of modern birds…"

In the link. Can't read?

You'll notice in that source that there were several ellipses' present. This means that the person who wrote that article cut out a few sentences to make that paragraph. That's called quote mining.
Although unfortunately, Google Scholar is not being my friend in letting me see the whole text (funnily enough, it's the two pages in question from Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution, p280 - 281, that it's not letting me see), so I can't quote the actual piece of text in question.

 

[Abraxos]

You'll notice in that source that there were several ellipses' present. This means that the person who wrote that article cut out a few sentences to make that paragraph. That's called quote mining.
Although unfortunately, Google Scholar is not being my friend in letting me see the whole text (funnily enough, it's the two pages in question from Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution, p280 - 281, that it's not letting me see), so I can't quote the actual piece of text in question.

"Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archaeopteryx's feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. As was discussed above, reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat fluctuates with the temperature of their environment, rather than being homeostatically regulated. A very important function of the feathers on birds is the maintenance of a constant body temperature. The fact that Archaeopteryx had feathers shows that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to retain its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs."

Yay for the progression of science, eh?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archaeopteryx's feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. As was discussed above, reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat fluctuates with the temperature of their environment, rather than being homeostatically regulated. A very important function of the feathers on birds is the maintenance of a constant body temperature. The fact that Archaeopteryx had feathers shows that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to retain its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs."

Yay for the progression of science, eh?

Okay, here's a few things first:
1) It's very bad form to quote a piece of text without saying what the source is.
2) Scientists have known for decades that dinosaurs were in fact warm-blooded. There's no way such creatures Argentinosaurus and Mamenchisaurus, two of the largest dinosaurs known to exist, could have survived if their body temperature fluctuated with the environment. They were simply too large.
3) It has been shown that many species of therapod dinosaur had feathers to some varying degree, so the fact that the Archeopteryx had feathers does not render the fact that it's a dinosaur moot.

Really. Read other sites that crappy creationist sites. Read ACTUAL scientific blogs and website.

 

[Abraxos]

Okay, here's a few things first:
1) It's very bad form to quote a piece of text without saying what the source is.
2) Scientists have known for decades that dinosaurs were in fact warm-blooded. There's no way such creatures Argentinosaurus and Mamenchisaurus, two of the largest dinosaurs known to exist, could have survived if their body temperature fluctuated with the environment. They were simply too large.
3) It has been shown that many species of therapod dinosaur had feathers to some varying degree, so the fact that the Archeopteryx had feathers does not render the fact that it's a dinosaur moot.

Really. Read other sites that crappy creationist sites. Read ACTUAL scientific blogs and website.

Archaeopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time.
However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx fossils indicate that this explanation lacks any scientific foundation. This is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/31/archeopteryxs-evolutionary-humuliation-continues/

How about National Geographic?

 

[Jimmy D]

Archaeopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time.
However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx fossils indicate that this explanation lacks any scientific foundation. This is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/31/archeopteryxs-evolutionary-humuliation-continues/

How about National Geographic?

How about it? I can't see any of the text you quoted in that article. What exactly are arguing anyway?

 

[Ophiolite]

There are animals mentioned in the Bible that science cannot explain.

Science does not claim to be omniscient, but I'll take the bait. Which animals were you thinking of?

 

[Ophiolite]

Archaeopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time.
However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx fossils indicate that this explanation lacks any scientific foundation. This is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/31/archeopteryxs-evolutionary-humuliation-continues/

How about National Geographic?

Startling news! Science continues in its unflagging efforts to follow the evidence and to steadily improve understanding and knowledge even when this requires rejecting previously held ideas. Do you want us to follow the alternative approach of never changing our minds, but remaining trapped in orthodoxy and dogma?

And how about you give an honest rendition of the post, not the biased and corrupt nonsense you have posted. Today's evolutionists happily announce that Archaeopteryx is, indeed, nothing special. It is one of many extinct creatures that were transitional between dinosaurs and birds. This may be a "humilitation" for Archaeopteryx, but it is a glowing tribute to the work of palaeontologists and a brilliant confirmation of the evolution of the birds.

Either you are insufficiently skilled to understand what you were reading, or ........ Either way your post has zero value.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are animals mentioned in the Bible that science cannot explain.

I'm not going to assume this thing has been classified correctly -- especially if it contradicts Scripture.

Why would science need to explain mythical creatures?