AIG responds to feathered velociraptor

[Nooj]

Lame.

I found this part hilarious:

Furthermore, other fossil finds considered to be dinosaur precursors to birds have turned out to be flightless birds similar to ostriches, such as Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui.

1) No one claims that velociraptors are precursors to birds.
2) Are they seriously suggesting that velociraptors are flightless birds now?
3) Why would they even include this information if not to fill up space AKA waffle, so that it seems like they're actually responding? It has nothing to do with feathered velociraptors. Red-herring.
4) Caudipteryx is generally believed to be a theropod dinosaur, not a secondarily flightless bird, although some scientists (Feduccia) do hold this view. But the majority of the palaeontological community think that Caudipteryx is an oviraptorosaur.

Dyke, G.J. and Norell, M.A. 2005. Caudipteryx as a non?avialan theropod
rather than a flightless bird. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 50 (1):
101-116.

Caudipteryx zoui is a small enigmatic theropod known from the Early
Cretaceous Yixian Formation of the People's Republic of China. From the time
of its initial description, this taxon has stimulated a great deal of
ongoing debate regarding the phylogenetic relationship between non?avialan
theropods and birds (Avialae) because it preserves structures that have been
uncontroversially accepted as feathers (albeit aerodynamically unsuitable
for flight). However, it has also been proposed that both the relative
proportions of the hind limb bones (when compared with overall leg length),
and the position of the center of mass in Caudipteryx are more similar to
those seen in extant cusorial birds than they are to other non-avialan
theropod dinosaurs. This conclusion has been used to imply that Caudipteryx
may not have been correctly interpreted as a feathered non?avialan theropod,
but instead that this taxon represents some kind of flightless bird. We
review the evidence for this claim at the level of both the included fossil
specimen data, and in terms of the validity of the results presented. There
is no reason - phylogenetic, morphometric or otherwise - to conclude that
Caudipteryx is anything other than a small non-avialan theropod dinosaur.

Finally, what if these are undoubtedly quill knobs on an unquestionable velociraptor fossil arm bone? In other words, what if—though no feathers were found with the fossil—this did prove that velociraptor was a feathered dinosaur? Although the evidence for “feathered dinosaurs” has been wanting in the past, and though we’re nowhere near convinced of this study’s findings, nothing in the Bible precludes the erstwhile existence of feathered dinosaurs. What the Bible does indicate is that if feathered dinosaurs were to have existed, they would have been created with feathers; they did not evolve from reptilian scales, which are quite different.

Every year they have to backtrack more and more. Now they accept feathered dinosaurs. Why did God make dinosaurs that were feathered and so close anatomically to birds I wonder?

But evolutionists’ need to explain where birds came from. And the idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds faces numerous problems, as presented by both creationists and evolutionist bird experts, such as University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill researcher Alan Feduccia.

Alan Feduccia is quite possibly the only vertebrate palaeontologist that doesn't accept the dinosaur ancestry of birds. That's why they throw his name around so often. Creationists really have no one else.

We eagerly await further research into the find.

Whilst earnestly praying that further research doesn't undermine their position.

 

[rjw]

Lame.

I found this part hilarious: 1) No one claims that velociraptors are precursors to birds.
2) Are they seriously suggesting that velociraptors are flightless birds now?
3) Why would they even include this information if not to fill up space AKA waffle, so that it seems like they're actually responding? It has nothing to do with feathered velociraptors. Red-herring.
4) Caudipteryx is generally believed to be a theropod dinosaur, not a secondarily flightless bird, although some scientists (Feduccia) do hold this view. But the majority of the palaeontological community think that Caudipteryx is an oviraptorosaur.
Every year they have to backtrack more and more. Now they accept feathered dinosaurs. Why did God make dinosaurs that were feathered and so close anatomically to birds I wonder?
Alan Feduccia is quite possibly the only vertebrate palaeontologist that doesn't accept the dinosaur ancestry of birds. That's why they throw his name around so often. Creationists really have no one else.

Whilst earnestly praying that further research doesn't undermine their position.

Of a similar note:-

I was listening to a local radio science show* yesterday. An expert on Archie was being interviewed. They had done a CAT scan on the animal's noggin and so had been able to re-create its brain case.

From that brain case, they now know that Archie had some (but not all) of the brain features that match those of flying birds. Their inference is that archie could fly, but not very well.



Regards, Roland

* You will know this - Radio National's "Science Show"

 

[L'Anatra]

Whilst earnestly praying that further research doesn't undermine their position.

Yeah, but even if it does, it probably won't matter. They'll just wait a few years and then throw another piece of trash like this article up on the internet.

Thanks for the post!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Just... wow. I am amazed at their capacity for cognitive dissonance over this sort of stuff. Of course, the creationist movement has had to backtrack since day 1. This is nothing new.

 

[Nooj]

Of a similar note:-

I was listening to a local radio science show* yesterday. An expert on Archie was being interviewed. They had done a CAT scan on the animal's noggin and so had been able to re-create its brain case.

From that brain case, they now know that Archie had some (but not all) of the brain features that match those of flying birds. Their inference is that archie could fly, but not very well.

Regards, Roland

* You will know this - Radio National's "Science Show"

Yes, I was listening to it yesterday as well. But I was a bit puzzled after I googled the research. It dates from 2003-04. ABC interviewed the scientists four years after they did their work. A little strange.

Yeah, but even if it does, it probably won't matter. They'll just wait a few years and then throw another piece of trash like this article up on the internet.

Thanks for the post!

It's not even worthy of the title of article. It's just a quick, ambiguous commentary urging 'lets wait and see!'. I bet they'll drop this business quick and silently. AIG only writes up a full-scale article for big, public news when they have no choice but to respond or risk irrelevancy. Like Tiktaalik.

And to think that I actually once thought of AIG as a threat. They're good for a laugh.

 

[rjw]

Yes, I was listening to it yesterday as well. But I was a bit puzzled after I googled the research. It dates from 2003-04. ABC interviewed the scientists four years after they did their work. A little strange.
It's not even worthy of the title of article. It's just a quick, ambiguous commentary urging 'lets wait and see!'. I bet they'll drop this business quick and silently. AIG only writes up a full-scale article for big, public news when they have no choice but to respond or risk irrelevancy. Like Tiktaalik.

And to think that I actually once thought of AIG as a threat. They're good for a laugh.

Thanks for that bit of info Nooj. I did not realize. I was about to go looking for reports on it. I will not bother now.


Regards, Roland

 

[Aggie]

And to think that I actually once thought of AIG as a threat. They're good for a laugh.

I still think they are. If you haven’t already, I think you should read my OP in this thread.

I wish Gary Vaterlaus (one of the creationist writers for AiG) would come back here and debate with us some more, the way he was doing in the thread I linked to. After a while he said that he had to stop posting here because he was leaving town, but whenever he got back he didn’t return to this forum. This particular thing is something I’d really like to debate with him about.

There’s always the booklet that I’m working on with Rational Responders, of course, but it’ll probably be another several months before that’s finished.

 

[Nooj]

Thanks for that bit of info Nooj. I did not realize. I was about to go looking for reports on it. I will not bother now.


Regards, Roland

Wikipedia links to the Nature paper for free. An interesting read.

I still think they are. If you haven’t already, I think you should read my OP in this thread.

I have heard incidents of Christians losing their faith, but losing their lives? That's terrible. I don't think I can hold AIG responsible for people killing themselves or having a crisis of faith, but they're certainly not helping.

But I can't see AIG as a threat to public information any longer. The majority of their articles are catered for people who are YECs already. It's already becoming a reference for YECs who are challenged by some new scientific news or argument. The solution? Go to AIG and dig up an article as 'evidence'. It's a vast reactive public relations front. Vacuous.

 

[Aggie]

I have heard incidents of Christians losing their faith, but losing their lives? That's terrible. I don't think I can hold AIG responsible for people killing themselves or having a crisis of faith, but they're certainly not helping.

But I can't see AIG as a threat to public information any longer. The majority of their articles are catered for people who are YECs already. It's already becoming a reference for YECs who are challenged by some new scientific news or argument. The solution? Go to AIG and dig up an article as 'evidence'. It's a vast reactive public relations front. Vacuous.

I think that particular case of it was caused by ICR rather than AiG, but AiG’s methods are so similar that it’s hard to imagine the same thing not happening in their case.

As far as I’m concerned, the biggest threat from AiG at the moment is their demand that all Christians have to be YECs. The effect I described is one possible result of this, but I think the most common result is that Christian parents will train their children to always have an attitude of hostility towards science. I’ve looked through some of the Creation Museum’s exhibits where they’re documented online, and most of them are geared towards instilling children with a basic fear of what AiG calls “human reason”.

They also advertise their museum in magazines such as Christianity Today as something that’s a must-see for Christian kids, so as the next generation of Christians in the U.S. grows up, I think we can expect to see an increase in this sort of attitude.

 

[MissionFM]

being a Christian threatens your way of life. You said a mouthful.. Thanks for pointing out the agenda. Us YECs already knew this.. What is so bad about being a Christian? MissionFM

 

[TheOutsider]

being a Christian threatens your way of life. You said a mouthful.. Thanks for pointing out the agenda. Us YECs already knew this.. What is so bad about being a Christian? MissionFM

Were you addressing someone in particular or did you accidentally stumble into the wrong thread?

 

[Dal M.]

being a Christian threatens your way of life. You said a mouthful.. Thanks for pointing out the agenda. Us YECs already knew this.. What is so bad about being a Christian? MissionFM

I don't think anyone said anything that could reasonably be interpreted as "Christianity threatens our way of life." The closest was Aggie, who said that AiG's antirationality stance threatened Christianity, but that may not what be what you were talking about. Heck, who knows?

Anyways, AiG's response was pretty much typical: "They weren't actually feathers and they weren't actually dinosaurs, but if they were actually feathered dinosaurs, it doesn't matter because God made them that way. And we eagerly await more research, although Lord knows we a.) don't intend to do any research ourselves and b.) will react to it with nothing but further kneejerk denial."

 

[Loudmouth]

What is so bad about being a Christian? MissionFM

Some christians (and I stress "some") believe that creation myths should be taught as fact in science classes. That, to me, is bad.