It must be a bird!

[In situ]

Velociraptor mongoliensis

"there is no reason to consider this animal a feathered dinosaur other than the evolutionists’ need to find an evolutionary ancestor for birds" -- "Dr." Elizabeth Mitchell

What?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And the remarkable thing is that in empirical observations of the natural world we see Asian mating with African producing an Afro-Asian with no transitory forms between the Asian or African and the Afro-Asian. Yet I am expected to ignore this and instead improperly classify 90% of the fossil record as separate species - instead of what it shows - breed mating with breed producing new breeds (variation) within the species.

I am to ignore studies which suggest that almost all of their classifications were merely a rush to get their names in the books as the discoverer of a new species.

I am to ignore that the differences between claimed ancestors of man are no different than that between modern humans - yet they classified them as separate species, even if they do not do the same with modern man that contains those same differences between them. Refusing to now correct their mistakes in classification.

I am to ignore that finches that have been interbreeding and producing fertile offspring since they first arrived on the islands are according to their own definition of species - all merely breeds of the same species and pretend instead it shows speciation.

No, once they correct 90% of their incorrect classifications - the only thing left to theorize upon will be Kind after Kind.

And maybe the artist can take a little more artistic license next time too.

Or is it this artists rendering we are to accept?

Seems the artists or the paleontologist's can't even make up their own minds what it looked like, depending on who does the study and what artist they take it to.

 

[In situ]

And the remarkable thing is that in empirical observations of the natural world ...

My point is analog to a denial of bats being mammals simply because they fly and mammals in general don't. But your point is?

 

[In situ]

I am to ignore that finches that have been interbreeding and producing fertile offspring since they first arrived on the islands are according to their own definition of species - all merely breeds of the same species and pretend instead it shows speciation.

Do you accept that all eukaryotic cells can be treated as one "kind" ?

 

[Smidlee]

I guess this picture assumes the "Inclined Plane" tale where wings slowly evolved by being chased up hill. As Steve pointed out though somehow as the arm grow into wings the legs became thinner.

 

[In situ]

I guess this picture assumes the "Inclined Plane" tale where wings slowly evolved by being chased up hill.

I do not know what might be assumed or implied in the picture. To me it looks like an attempt to catch something on the ground but I guess those "assumptions", i.e imaginations, are to be found in the eye of the beholders - but leaving things for the imagination is what good art is about.

In any case, what I wanted to point out with my post is the silly way creationists ignore certain facts, as a general rule, in order to conclude what they want to believe. In other words, their confirmation bias makes them blind to the obvious. Whether this illustration is correct or not does not really matter - the purpose is to visualize how silly creationist's reasoning and arguments actually are:

What we see are dinosaur with feathers. But somehow, if a dinosaur has feather and as well happens to be bird like Elizabeth Mitchell then conclude, with some pseudoscientific "evidence", that such creature cannot be a dinosaur but a bird and then claims biologist asserts with no evidence that it is a dinosaur with the only purpose to make up an evolutionary ancestor to the birds. Which of course is just plain silly to say.

This has nothing to do with evolution, but are observations that helps us to classify living beings into groups, and we know from observational evidence that birds should be grouped with avian dinosaurs per definition of what it means to be an avian dinosaurs. This in turn implies that birds are related to dinosaurs. The bird-dinosaur connection is an evidence based conclusion! This is not making up stuff as "Dr" Elizabeth Mitchell claims it to be.

 

[In situ]

Okay, watching this and then getting 27 second into the video and as well having a look at the title at the same time I started to get a feeling what this will lead to; they usually creationist rants about how evolution is not possible. I am sorry but I do not feel for watching such drivel now, in paritcular as I see no relevance with this reference to the OP.

 

[In situ]

I am to ignore that the differences between claimed ancestors of man are no different than that between modern - yet they classified them as separate species, even if they do not do the same with modern man that contains those same differences between them.

As a OT side note for the record: I have watched your attempts to convince loudmouth that man and H. erectus are the same species by claiming that some modern man has the same skull features as erectus. However you have utterly failed in providing any convincing evidence for this claim. If you cannot present evidence better than figments of your own imaginations then I see no reasons to accept your claim. But like I said in my first respond to your post here; I failed to see the point you are trying to make towards the OP.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

My point is analog to a denial of bats being mammals simply because they fly and mammals in general don't. But your point is?

Yah well, whales are mammals too, your point being? Mine was analogous to every single person drawing them differently - showing no one really knows.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you accept that all eukaryotic cells can be treated as one "kind" ?

I accept all Felidae are of one Kind - it is quite obvious. Just as I accept all Canidae as one Kind - it is quite obvious too. As Ursidae are all obviously one Kind. As all Ceratopsia are of one Kind - it's quite obvious too. As all humans are of one Kind - quite obvious and apes are of one Kind - also obvious.

As I consider all finches that interbreed and produce fertile offspring as all one Kind - again quite obvious. Why you seem to have a problem figuring it out is beyond me.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In any case, what I wanted to point out with my post is the silly way creationists ignore certain facts, as a general rule, in order to conclude what they want to believe. In other words, their confirmation bias makes them blind to the obvious. Whether this illustration is correct or not does not really matter - the purpose is to visualize how silly creationist's reasoning and arguments actually are:

As I have pointed out several times the silly way evolutionists continue to ignore facts, as a general rule, in order to conclude what they want to believe.

Such as say classifying finches that interbreed and produce fertile offspring as separate species? Or Ceratopsia as separate species instead of merely breeds? Or ring species being merely local adaptations that make them infraspecific taxa?

What we see are dinosaur with feathers. But somehow, if a dinosaur has feather and as well happens to be bird like Elizabeth Mitchell then conclude, with some pseudoscientific "evidence", that such creature cannot be a dinosaur but a bird and then claims biologist asserts with no evidence that it is a dinosaur with the only purpose to make up an evolutionary ancestor to the birds. Which of course is just plain silly to say.

This has nothing to do with evolution, but are observations that helps us to classify living beings into groups, and we know from observational evidence that birds should be grouped with avian dinosaurs per definition of what it means to be an avian dinosaurs. This in turn implies that birds are related to dinosaurs. The bird-dinosaur connection is an evidence based conclusion! This is not making up stuff as "Dr" Elizabeth Mitchell claims it to be.

It implies no relationship - any more than a bird today implies a relationship to reptiles or mammals today - just because they exist at the same time. Just because an Avian species existed then - does not mean that they and dinosaurs are any more related than an Avian or reptiles today. You are assuming that based upon what you choose to believe - not because of any fact. The only fact you have is that birds today are not similar to anything else today - and so why assume they were similar to creatures obviously different from them in the past?

There is no good reason, except you want it to be that way.

 

[Cearbhall]

As I have pointed out several times the silly way evolutionists continue to ignore facts, as a general rule, in order to conclude what they want to believe.

What I'm hearing: "I don't understand the facts; therefore, they are wrong, and anyone who understands them and agrees with evolutionary theory is lying."

 

[In situ]

whales are mammals too, your point being?

My point is; if one accept the classification of whales as mammals then one, on similar classification principles, should also accept that birds are dinosaurs as well.

Mine was analogous to every single person drawing them differently - showing no one really knows.

We still know dinosaurs had feathers, your "point" is irelevanty to the OP which is about creationists denial of the bird-dinosaur connection.

 

[Smidlee]

Okay, watching this and then getting 27 second into the video and as well having a look at the title at the same time I started to get a feeling what this will lead to; they usually creationist rants about how evolution is not possible. I am sorry but I do not feel for watching such drivel now, in paritcular as I see no relevance with this reference to the OP.

He doesn't claimed to be a creationist so I don't assume he is. If you keep watching he goes through 3 different theories how evolutionist believes dinosaurs gain flight and how all three goes against common sense.

If you are already satisfied everything evolutionist tells you then I guess it would be a waste of time for you to learn from those who have doubts about Darwinism. I don't mind read and learning from evolutionist as I think the best evidence against evolution come from evolutionist.

We still know dinosaurs had feathers, your "point" is irelevanty to the OP which is about creationists denial of the bird-dinosaur connection.

You do realize that all you have is a drawing by an evolutionist of what they think the creature look like. It's kind of like all those drawing of Pluto didn't look like the real picture of Pluto. I don't think I ever saw a drawing of Pluto with a red tint before.

 

[In situ]

As I have pointed out several times the silly way evolutionists continue to ignore facts, as a general rule, in order to conclude what they want to believe.

Such as say classifying finches that interbreed and produce fertile offspring as separate species? Or Ceratopsia as separate species instead of merely breeds? Or ring species being merely local adaptations that make them infraspecific taxa?

What does this has to do with creationist that denies the bird-dinosaur connection?

It implies no relationship

Yes it does. Short version of the deduction:

1) Living beings are observed to reproduce by passing inherent unique traits from parent(s) to offspring.
2) If a living being can be show to posses a subset of unique traits of another organism then from 1) it implies they are related.
3) Birds and dinosaurs share unquiet traits.
4) Therefore bird and dinosaurs are related.

Just because an Avian species existed then - does not mean that they and dinosaurs are any more related than an Avian or reptiles today.

I am not, and have no intention, to discuss how much they are related. I am just claiming they are related,a dn that we know this based on observational evidence, i.e. which are shared hundred shared unique traits, in where feathers is just one obvious example which even a five years old should be able to recognize.

You are assuming that based upon what you choose to believe - not because of any fact.

Since you now have declared all taxonomist incompetent, and yourself an expert on taxonomy, we can as well assert that whales also are assumed to be mammals, in the same way there is no evidence that birds are dinosaur, there exists no evidence tat whales are mammal. You know what... you are getting close to insanity with you denial of facts.

The only fact you have is that birds today are not similar to anything else today

Except for for couple of hundred unique traits they share with dinosaurs - and that list grows longer each day.

and so why assume they were similar to creatures obviously different from them in the past?

[WARNING: irony!]
Yes birds are obvious very different to these micoraptors which was a separate linage, not leading to birds, that went extinct. I would never misstake these raptors for a bird... I mean they don't even look close to an ostrich.

Seriously, what are the next hillarius claim you gonna make? Considering there are far, far, less evidence for Pluto orbiting the sun than there is evidence for the bird-dinosaur relation, perhaps you then will want to claim we cannot know if Pluto orbits the sun? After all, we have known about Pluto less time than it takes for its claimed time to orbit the sun, i.e nobody has ever seen Pluto make a full orbit so it is a "guess" only, therefore nobody really knows then, right?

There is no good reason, except you want it to be that way.

This is empty rhetoric - argueing "there is no evidence" is not very smart when we know the evidence comes from taxonomy. Not understading why taxonomy is evidence does not entile you to say there is no evidence.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What I'm hearing: "I don't understand the facts; therefore, they are wrong, and anyone who understands them and agrees with evolutionary theory is lying."

Oh, I understand the facts quite well. The facts of finches that have been interbreeding and producing fertile offspring since they arrived on the islands and the fact that evolutionist's continue to lie in an attempt to cover up their mistakes in classification before they bothered to study them. That's what I am hearing. I'm hearing mistakes in classification with every major group of dinosaurs. That's what I am hearing.

And then I hear others come on here and attempt to defend those obvious mistakes, all because of a fear that it might imply other than what they claim if they actually admit the truth. I see evolutionists always claiming it is others that don't understand, while ignoring their own definitions. What I am hearing is you making excuses for your obvious mistakes by attempting to blame others. If you are claiming finches that all interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species - then yes - you are lying. So are you attempting to support that false claim or not?

 

[In situ]

he goes through 3 different theories .... all three goes against common sense.

Common sense is an argumentum ad populum. Common sense miss guides us all the time. That is why we have science; results from since is most often contrary to what common sense tells us. If it wasn't we would not need science in the first place. We could just use common sense. But science does not work that way. Science is not about common sense. Science defy common sense.

It was once common sense that a force was need to be applied to something to keep it moving, but since told us it was not so. It was once common sense to think that a heavier body falls faster than a light, but science told us this was not the case. Science defy our common sense. We can go on forever like this, in fact there is whole books written on this topic; how little commons sense science make.

The sooner you understand that common sense is most often ustless for a scientific understanding of things, the sooner you will be able to spot when people talk nonsense. People whihc refers to common sense most of the time speaks nonsense - since "common sense" is not an argument at all but mostly an opinion based on some form of belief or assumptions. This is the reason why our common sense often turns out to be wrong.

All that said, the video is still not relevant to the OP.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What does this has to do with creationist that denies the bird-dinosaur connection?

Who says there is a connection between birds and dinosaurs, anymore than there is one between birds and reptiles?

Yes it does. Short version of the deduction:

1) Living beings are observed to reproduce by passing inherent unique traits from parent(s) to offspring.

By the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits.
Which will never become fixed in the general population unless those offspring end up the entire population.

2) If a living being can be show to posses a subset of unique traits of another organism then from 1) it implies they are related.

No more related than a snake and a human which both posses eyes.

3) Birds and dinosaurs share unquiet traits.

none at all - Triceratops shares nothing with birds.

4) Therefore bird and dinosaurs are related.

Finches all have feathers and beaks - yet they are separate species despite interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. Make up your mind please.

I am not, and have no intention, to discuss how much they are related. I am just claiming they are related,a dn that we know this based on observational evidence, i.e. which are shared hundred shared unique traits, in where feathers is just one obvious example which even a five years old should be able to recognize.

And even a five year old recognizes these are nothing like birds.

Since you now have declared all taxonomist incompetent, and yourself an expert on taxonomy, we can as well assert that whales also are assumed to be mammals, in the same way there is no evidence that birds are dinosaur, there exists no evidence tat whales are mammal. You know what... you are getting close to insanity with you denial of facts.

Not all - just those incorrectly classifying the fossil record, while still being able to recognize breeds of dogs, cats, deer, beer, etc. It seems their problem only arises when things are dead and they have never observed them in life. Probably because every biologist in plant and animal husbandry wouldn't stand for their foolishness of trying to call dogs separate species.

Except for for couple of hundred unique traits they share with dinosaurs - and that list grows longer each day.

In your mind it grows longer - in real life it grows shorter - as those mistakes in classification are discovered. The ones you are still refusing to admit to. You know, finches that all interbreed and produce fertile offspring ring a bell? Or babies and adults they classified as separate species?

[WARNING: irony!]
Yes birds are obvious very different to these micoraptors which was a separate linage, not leading to birds, that went extinct. I would never misstake these raptors for a bird... I mean they don't even look close to an ostrich.

Seriously, what are the next hillarius claim you gonna make? Considering there are far, far, less evidence for Pluto orbiting the sun than there is evidence for the bird-dinosaur relation, perhaps you then will want to claim we cannot know if Pluto orbits the sun? After all, we have known about Pluto less time than it takes for its claimed time to orbit the sun, i.e nobody has ever seen Pluto make a full orbit so it is a "guess" only, therefore nobody really knows then, right?


This is empty rhetoric - argueing "there is no evidence" is not very smart when we know the evidence comes from taxonomy. Not understading why taxonomy is evidence does not entile you to say there is no evidence.

Except you have mistaken them with birds - claiming they share the same lineage - the exact thing you just assured us you would never do. So much for assurances I guess? [irony warning here]

What evidence? Pictures of birds? When you once assured me a raptor looked like this.

And now suddenly looks like this:

I'd say your not really sure of what they look like from one artist rendering to the next, depending on what story they want to tell about them this year to get their names in the books.

 

[Cearbhall]

Oh, I understand the facts quite well. The facts of finches that have been interbreeding and producing fertile offspring since they arrived on the islands and the fact that evolutionist's continue to lie in an attempt to cover up their mistakes in classification before they bothered to study them. That's what I am hearing. I'm hearing mistakes in classification with every major group of dinosaurs. That's what I am hearing.

You mean the fact that science, by definition, is a work in progress, and that we don't have answers until we find them? God forbid a human being not figure out the whole truth the first time around. The collaborative nature of scientific discovery does not disprove anything.

And then I hear others come on here and attempt to defend those obvious mistakes, all because of a fear that it might imply other than what they claim if they actually admit the truth. I see evolutionists always claiming it is others that don't understand, while ignoring their own definitions. What I am hearing is you making excuses for your obvious mistakes by attempting to blame others. If you are claiming finches that all interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species - then yes - you are lying. So are you attempting to support that false claim or not?

Oh, for pete's sake. There are many close species in existence that can interbreed. That's what often happens when you've evolved from a common ancestor. What's more, whether something is a species or subspecies is not always clear, since we came up with all of these concepts to begin with. It's a working definition more than anything. There's still debate about whether Neanderthals were a separate species from us, for example. It's not scientifically impossible or "lying," it's just going a bit beyond the simplified middle school definition of "Different species are animals that can't make a baby!" That's a great introductory understanding of it, but reality is much more complex. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[In situ]

Oh, I understand the facts quite well.

No you don't understand "the facts" either because your analytic skills are not sufficient developed for that yet. For example, you do not understand nor do you know what the telltale signs for kinship is. But that does not prevent you from saying that all biologist got it all wrong. A more specif case; you don't understand why a modern human skull cannot be classified as H. erectus skull and insist that some humans are more similar to eretus than other human by presenting some silly subjective opinions as "evidence", which implies you do not even understand what 'evidence' are. I guess you might regard evidence as subjective "interpretations of facts", i.e. opinions, or some other kind of silly nonsense.

In short, you are using your own ignorance and lack of understanding as "evidence". In other words, you are deluding yourself with nonsense.