Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Perhaps you can rephrase it in a way that is a little easier to understand.
but the proof you provided was a picture of a feathered tail. And because of that tail, because it has feathers you are linking dinasaurs to birds. I am just saying there is no conclusive data in what was presented, and I mentioned a Trex teeth being in common with an alligators teeth(they are both razor sharp), and wallah I just created my own transition. Now just because a few scientists are on board does not validate my premise, as I just literally made it up out of thin air. You must provide at least some solid peer review or something. But even then who is to say that the bird was not always prehistoric and thus a dinasaur? Firstly, just because dino's have feathers and/or could fly does not make them an ancestor of modern birds. There are many differences between archaeopteryx say and a blue jay. If you want I can pull many of them up. But yeah if you want solid evidence you must provide a transitional fossil photograph between two genra of animals. Again I think some dino's were already birds, that is why they could fly. I see no sense in saying they evolved over millions of years into birds, they already were birds.
I use taxonomy because taxonomy does not assume evolution true as it was created a hundred years before darwin. Evolutionists realized there was a genus barrier to the evolutionary process so they sort of created their own evolutionary tree, the only ones who believe in phylogenetics are evolutionists. you typically see taxonomy used over phylogenetics.
So this is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well. It is also an ad hominem. Let me explain how the first fallacy applies. It assumes because there was one scientific or medical error that all science or medical practice was in error in the 18th century. That is obviously wrong. Secondly let me explain how an ad hominem works. Typically when a logical premise is valid a skeptic will attack the presenter of said factual information, as sort of a character assasination. It goes as follows...."you quoted 18th century science, therefore you you have embraced all 18th century science, and medicine and all of your arguments are a few hundred years out of date." But taxonomy as we know it is universally accepted to this date. And besides if you can do that with taxonomy, I could do it with darwinism which was only a hundred years later.
I am using unbiased science. See if you are using phylogenetics, it's biased. See evolutionary biology is the same. They presume the conclusion is true. Begging the question is when you use your conclusion as evidence. You can't do that, that is circular. You must build your case with premises of science, then base your conclusions on your evidence. But simply quoting phylogenetics is circular. It would be like me quoting the Gospel of John to prove the Gospel of John. you can't do that. That is why I ask for taxonomical classifications. Because being a hundred years before darwin, they won't hold the evolutionary biases that phylogenetics have. And thus would be an unbiased source of evidence.
