Winter Wheat Video Lecture

[Astrid]

We do not need to. We can examine their skeletons. And feathers. And other features that last. Just because one does not know how to test an idea does not mean that it has not been properly supported. In other words do not jump to conclusisidestepped.
[ /Quote ]
What in there cannot be predicted and tested?
In the event, ad hoc creorules for science are not really worthy of
much attention.

 

[renniks]

We do not need to. We can examine their skeletons. And feathers. And other features that last. Just because one does not know how to test an idea does not mean that it has not been properly supported. In other words do not jump to conclusions.

Feathers?
They found neither barbs nor central shafts (rachis). And the forelimb is only called “winglike” because of its presumptive (but missing) long feather.

Hardly conclusive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Feathers?
They found neither barbs nor central shafts (rachis). And the forelimb is only called “winglike” because of its presumptive (but missing) long feather.

Hardly conclusive.

What are you talking about? Feathers have been found for many dinosaurs. You seem to be making the creationist error of thinking that there are only single examples that support claims.

I went to Google Scholar and searched for "feathered dinosaurs" There were 9,950 results:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,48&q=feathered+dinosaurs&oq=feathers+din

If you ever watched Jurassic Park you should be aware of one big error, well actually two, that they made in regards to velocipator. They forgot the feathers and they made them far too large. Not only are clear quill knobs found on bones. Knobs that are only associated with feathers. There were also clear feather impressions. Not only that in some finds they were able to analyze surviving pigments so that they had a rough idea of the color of the beasties.

The Extent of the Preserved Feathers on the Four-Winged Dinosaur Microraptor gui under Ultraviolet Light

That makes images like these a reasonable interpretation of the data and not science fiction:

 

[renniks]

What are you talking about? Feathers have been found for many dinosaurs. You seem to be making the creationist error of thinking that there are only single examples that support claims.

I went to Google Scholar and searched for "feathered dinosaurs" There were 9,950 results:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,48&q=feathered+dinosaurs&oq=feathers+din

If you ever watched Jurassic Park you should be aware of one big error, well actually two, that they made in regards to velocipator. They forgot the feathers and they made them far too large. Not only are clear quill knobs found on bones. Knobs that are only associated with feathers. There were also clear feather impressions. Not only that in some finds they were able to analyze surviving pigments so that they had a rough idea of the color of the beasties.

The Extent of the Preserved Feathers on the Four-Winged Dinosaur Microraptor gui under Ultraviolet Light

That makes images like these a reasonable interpretation of the data and not science fiction:

Looks like a bird. Not a dino.

 

[Speedwell]

Looks like a bird. Not a dino.

And there you have it: the science of creationism in a nutshell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Looks like a bird. Not a dino.

Birds are dinosaurs. It cannot look like a bird and not be a dinosaur.

I know that denial is the only tool that creationists have. It is not very convincing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Birds are dinosaurs. It cannot look like a bird and not be a dinosaur.

We know that, prior to the Flood, all flesh had corrupted itself upon the earth.

Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Factor in this verse ...

Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

... then factor in the skeleton found in Post 203, and one can conclude that some kind of force-fitting of DNA was going on in the time of Noah.

Fallen angels on the earth, trying to mate dinosaurs with birds, man with apes, and who-knows-what with who-knows-who, and I'm not surprised you found something like this.

Put another way, they tried to turn Adam's Orchard into Darwin's Tree.

 

[renniks]

Birds are dinosaurs. It cannot look like a bird and not be a dinosaur.

I know that denial is the only tool that creationists have. It is not very convincing.

It's a freaking bird. I don't need the evolutionary model to explain a freaking bird.
In order for there to be to denial there has to be some evidence to deny.
It fits just fine in the creation model.

 

[renniks]

Evolutionists prove that mammals transitioned into birds!

 

[Speedwell]

Evolutionists prove that mammals transitioned into birds!

Yeah, warm-blooded birds with fur. Isn't evolution amazing?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Evolutionists prove that mammals transitioned into birds!

Given that there are no "evolutionists", and that mammals are most definitely NOT related to birds...

 

[Mr Laurier]

Looks like a bird. Not a dino.

Looks like a bird, which is a dino.

 

[Mr Laurier]

We know that, prior to the Flood, all flesh had corrupted itself upon the earth.

Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Factor in this verse ...

Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

... then factor in the skeleton found in Post 203, and one can conclude that some kind of force-fitting of DNA was going on in the time of Noah.

Fallen angels on the earth, trying to mate dinosaurs with birds, man with apes, and who-knows-what with who-knows-who, and I'm not surprised you found something like this.

Put another way, they tried to turn Adam's Orchard into Darwin's Tree.

wow.
your fantasy is very convoluted

 

[AV1611VET]

wow.
your fantasy is very convoluted

Did it begin here?

Genesis 6:12 And God ...

 

[Mr Laurier]

Did it begin here?

Genesis 6:12 And God ...

I do not know. Only you know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We know that, prior to the Flood, all flesh had corrupted itself upon the earth.

Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Factor in this verse ...

Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

... then factor in the skeleton found in Post 203, and one can conclude that some kind of force-fitting of DNA was going on in the time of Noah.

Fallen angels on the earth, trying to mate dinosaurs with birds, man with apes, and who-knows-what with who-knows-who, and I'm not surprised you found something like this.

Put another way, they tried to turn Adam's Orchard into Darwin's Tree.

Sorry, we know that there was no flood. No point in going on from there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a freaking bird. I don't need the evolutionary model to explain a freaking bird.
In order for there to be to denial there has to be some evidence to deny.
It fits just fine in the creation model.

No, it is not. It was lacking in quite a few bird traits. It was a dinosaur, like all birds are. But it was not a bird.

Think of it this way, ducks are birds but not all birds are ducks. You are making an error of classification.

EDITED: Thank you @Ponderous Curmudgeon for pointing out my faux pas.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

No, it is not. It was lacking in quite a few bird traits. It was a dinosaur, like all birds are. But it was not a bird.

Think of it this way, birds are ducks but not all ducks are birds. You are making an error of classification.

?

 

[Subduction Zone]

?

We were discussing velociraptor. A feathered dinosaur.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, we know that there was no flood. No point in going on from there.

Is the Flood a missing link in earth's history, is it?

Now you know why I think the Bible should be taught in history class, not science.