A fascinating video on the vacuity of Macro Evolution for

[Subduction Zone]

Oh please. If that were the standard of evidence, Creationism wouldn't be a part of the discussion in the first place. There would be no need for a debate.

Well that's true, but there are tons of articles on feathered dinosaurs. It is not a controversial subject at all as it was in the 1980's. I am merely surprised that gradyll did not know of this.

 

[Cearbhall]

Well that's true, but there are tons of articles on feathered dinosaurs. It is not a controversial subject at all as it was in the 1980's. I am merely surprised that gradyll did not know of this.

Oh, I know. Just making a point.

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh please. If that were the standard of evidence, Creationism wouldn't be a part of the discussion in the first place. There would be no need for a debate.

so, no. Thankyou, I rest my case.

 

[createdtoworship]

Please, when you are the ignorant one you really should not accuse others of being ignorant.

And yes. There are plenty of peer reviewed articles on feathered dinosaurs:

feathered dinosaurs - Google Scholar

When typing in the search bar I had only gotten part way through "feathered" when feathered dinosaurs came up as a possible search.

so, no. I rest my case. (as your link is too generic)

 

[createdtoworship]

Please, when you are the ignorant one you really should not accuse others of being ignorant.

And yes. There are plenty of peer reviewed articles on feathered dinosaurs:

feathered dinosaurs - Google Scholar

When typing in the search bar I had only gotten part way through "feathered" when feathered dinosaurs came up as a possible search.

I would also like a peer review of dinosaurs evolving from birds, or vice versa. One specifically with a link between two genra's of organisms.

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh please. If that were the standard of evidence, Creationism wouldn't be a part of the discussion in the first place. There would be no need for a debate.

I have dozens of creationsitic peer review, every year, more are published.

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh, I know. Just making a point.

Well that's true, but there are tons of articles on feathered dinosaurs. It is not a controversial subject at all as it was in the 1980's. I am merely surprised that gradyll did not know of this.

I posted a peer review, and all you guys can post is "go google it yourself." Nice debate here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so, no. I rest my case. (as your link is too generic)

No, you lose once again. You seemed to think that there were no feathered dinosaurs and my link showed that they are incredibly commonplace.

But then you lost when you went back on your word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have dozens of creationsitic peer review, every year, more are published.

Nope, there are not any. You have dozens of fake creationist peer review articles. Try to find one in a real scientific journal. A real scientific journal is based upon the scientific method. Sites such as Answers in Genesis actually require their workers to sign a pledge saying that they will not use the scientific method.

You lose again.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, you lose once again. You seemed to think that there were no feathered dinosaurs and my link showed that they are incredibly commonplace.

But then you lost when you went back on your word.

let me sum up your argument. I proved design in the feather via peer review. you say there are feathered dinasaurs and tell me to google search it myself.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope, there are not any. You have dozens of fake creationist peer review articles. Try to find one in a real scientific journal. A real scientific journal is based upon the scientific method. Sites such as Answers in Genesis actually require their workers to sign a pledge saying that they will not use the scientific method.

You lose again.

thats not the definition of peer review. just like quote mine, you like to make stuff up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I posted a peer review, and all you guys can post is "go google it yourself." Nice debate here.

When did you ever do so? And I can tell you that I did not say "go Google it yourself".

If I make a claim I am more than happy to defend it. As I did with my feathered dinosaur claim. I could even give you specific examples. Of course I may demand that you keep your word before I post any more links for you. From now until you watch the video that you promised to watch you are unable to demand any evidence from me. If I present any it is because I feel like it. But from time to time I may tell you to pound sand. That is unless you keep your word. Then you can ask for almost any evidence.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope, there are not any. You have dozens of fake creationist peer review articles. Try to find one in a real scientific journal. A real scientific journal is based upon the scientific method. Sites such as Answers in Genesis actually require their workers to sign a pledge saying that they will not use the scientific method.

You lose again.

hello, I just posted one. wake up, drink some coffee or something

 

[Subduction Zone]

let me sum up your argument. I proved design in the feather via peer review. you say there are feathered dinasaurs and tell me to google search it myself.

No, you wanted to see examples of peer reviewed articles on dinosaur feathers. I supplied you with endless examples. I did the Google search for you. I did the opposite of saying "search it yourself".

 

[Subduction Zone]

hello, I just posted one. wake up, drink some coffee or something

Where? Not on this page. But no worries. I will look at your recent posts and see if you posted any peer reviewed articles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

thats not the definition of peer review. just like quote mine, you like to make stuff up.

Wrong again, but then what else did I expect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have dozens of creationsitic peer review, every year, more are published.

Whoa! I missed this bogus claim.

Creationist "peer review" is not actual peer review. They are just garbage articles by loons that could not get published in the real word.

I give up. Can you please link your supposed "peer reviewed" article again?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would also like a peer review of dinosaurs evolving from birds, or vice versa. One specifically with a link between two genra's of organisms.

This is a poorly asked question that shows a lack of understanding of evolution.

Such a broad topic is not going to be found in one peer reviewed article. You will find countless articles that give individual examples that support this hypothesis. I could link scientific articles on the topic for you.

But right now I feel like pointing out that I am still waiting for you to watch the video that you said that you would watch.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

As much fun as this is to watch, I found some feather evolution articles.

This first one is from Scientific American. The article itself is not peer reviewed but rather summarizes peer reviewed literature. The peer reviewed references are at the end.
http://prumlab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/prum_n_brush_2003_origin.pdf

 

[Subduction Zone]

As much fun as this is to watch, I found some feather evolution articles.

This first one is from Scientific American. The article itself is not peer reviewed but rather summarizes peer reviewed literature. The peer reviewed references are at the end.
http://prumlab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/prum_n_brush_2003_origin.pdf

Aww, spoilsport.

But you are right. It went from a few finds to an endless supply in a relatively short time. A lot has to do with new sites that opened up in China as relationships thawed with that country.