It must be a bird!

In situ · Jul 19, 2015

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

Look, I have explained at least twice to you what the OP is about. I wont do it any more to you.

To be very clear: your are posting irrelevant OT nonsense and I do not welcome that in my thread. If you want to discuss species diversity - fine - but make your own thread and discuss it there with somebody that can muster more patience with your ignorant nonsense than I am able to.

lasthero · Jul 19, 2015

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.

Scientists don't typically make those drawings. If you have some issues with the way they look or whatnot, take it up with the people who drew them. Complaining about drawings made by artists - many of whom are more concerned with making their pictures look attractive and less about makign them accurate - seems a bit silly.

In situ · Jul 19, 2015

Cearbhall said:
Oh, for pete's sake. There are many close species in existence that can interbreed.

Please, do not feed the troll by discussing the cause of spices diversity or the species concept which only is used by the troll as a red herring; the OP is about exposing conformation bias and denial of evidence contrary to assumed beliefs in order to be able to conclude what one already has assumed to be true.

In situ · Jul 19, 2015

lasthero said:
Scientists don't typically make those drawings.

However, the black crow like microraptor in post #15 above is a reconstruction made by scientist based on the analysis of color pigments from the feathers and the anatomy of the fossil. The yellow beak is where some "artistic freedom" has been allowed. But we know it had a plumage color similar to this, we know it was black. But all that is irrelevant. What is ignored by Justatruthseeker is the fact that AiG's "Dr" Elizabeth Mitchell would happily be silent about half the facts, make up some nonsense, and then call such a creature "a bird" despite having clear trait of a dinosaur and belonging to a linage that did no even gave raise to birds. Denial at its best.

What this raptor really looked like, what kind of species it is, how much, or little, it was related with other animals etc is irrelevant. It is not even relevant if evolution is true or not. For all I care it does not even matter for the OP if every single dinosaur and bird that ever have lived has been magically created. What is relevant her is how classification is done and the obvious amateurish way "Dr" Elizabeth Mitchell attempts to make a classification by, more or less, arbitrary sherry picking traits that fits her desired conclusions.

This is the intellectual dishonesty Justatruthseeker tries to conceal with all his OT drivel about speciation. How hilarious ironic does not his avatar name sound then...

In situ · Jul 19, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
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.

You have a) no clue what I was talking about and b) no clue what you are talking about yourself.

Not only does your comments show how limited your own knowledge is (a person that understood what I talked about would not had replied in the way you did) but also your inability to get the point I tried to make. So what do you want now for writing all those fancy words? A medal? Maybe even a diploma in biology ? I mean you must for sure be an expert in biology if you can type all those words in a single sentence.

Realizing how shallow and limited your knowledge in biology is I also understand why you tend to repeat yourself all the time and and try push in the very same nonsense argument everywhere even if it has no relevance or bearing at all on the issue at hand.

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

Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. What you refutes is some kind of simplified parody version of taxonomy made up by creationists. If you spent more time study taxonomy and less time reading creationistic parody version of what biology teaches then you might actually had learn something about biology. As it is now you posses no knowledge of any value at all. All you know is junk, words, with no context or depths. In other words, you are not qualified to talk about these things, even less be critical to them. What is sad is that you do not realize what a fool you make out of yourself.

Justatruthseeker said:
none at all - Triceratops shares nothing with birds.

So what? Even if every single living being that ever had lived and still lived have been magical created from nothing, it has no bearing on the issue I deal with in the OP.

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

And then you go one with more of the same drivel about the species problem. Clearly I have failed to make you understand what the discussion in this thread is supposed to be about. It seams you are to busy to listen only to your own limited knowledge while it spins around in your brain telling yourself what an expert you are on these things while every biologist is an incompetent idiot. Therefore I have given up any hope that I will get through with my point to you., so let me make it as simple I can for you; You are OT! Stop trying to hijack my thread with your drivel!

The Cadet · Jul 20, 2015

Smidlee said:
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.

...Smidlee, serious question. Do you think that the representation of bird evolution around 30 seconds into that video has any resemblance whatsoever with how we understand they evolved? Like, at all? Are you under the impression that the guy who made this video knows anything about evolution? I just can't wrap my head around this. It's so wrong on so many levels. I know you're smarter than this. This guy has absolutely no clue what he's talking about!

Smidlee · Jul 20, 2015

In situ said:
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.

.

So does nonsense. Calling nonsense "science" doesn't make it make any more sense. You don't throw common sense out the window just because sometimes our senses are wrong. Again in order to do science you don't assume our senses are wrong without real evidence to show they are wrong. I wonder how many scientist would agree with your statement "science defy common sense." Science that automatically rejects common sense is madness.

The Cadet said:
...Smidlee, serious question. Do you think that the representation of bird evolution around 30 seconds into that video has any resemblance whatsoever with how we understand they evolved? Like, at all? Are you under the impression that the guy who made this video knows anything about evolution? I just can't wrap my head around this. It's so wrong on so many levels. I know you're smarter than this. This guy has absolutely no clue what he's talking about!

He makes more sense to me than anything I read from you. Can you explain why evolutionist would think something would grow wings and skinny legs by climbing hills? What do you really know about evolution besides just excepting what your "experts" tell you?

Loudmouth · Jul 20, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
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.

No one is saying that afro-Asians are transitional species. When will you realize this?

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.

Transitional fossils can be from the same species or separate species. I don't understand the problem here. The transitional nature of fossils has to do with their features, not with the name we stick on them. When two fossils are separated by millions of years, how do you even determine that they are the same or separate species to begin with?

Tell you what. Why don't you follow your own advice. Without using any morphological clues, please tell us if this is a human fossil.

Since, as you claim, 90% of all fossils are misidentified, then that has to be a human, right?

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 just fine with classifying all three of those fossils as H. erectus. Guess what? They are still transitional. 3 specimens from the same transitional species are still 3 transitional fossils.

Loudmouth · Jul 20, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
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.

Take a look at the opening post. That isn't a finch.

Smidlee · Jul 20, 2015

Nope it's doesn't look like a finch to me but more like a feathered Piltdown Man.

Loudmouth · Jul 20, 2015

Smidlee said:
Nope it's doesn't look like a finch to me but more like a feathered Piltdown Man.

How so?

Justatruthseeker · Jul 20, 2015

In situ said:
Look, I have explained at least twice to you what the OP is about. I wont do it any more to you.

To be very clear: your are posting irrelevant OT nonsense and I do not welcome that in my thread. If you want to discuss species diversity - fine - but make your own thread and discuss it there with somebody that can muster more patience with your ignorant nonsense than I am able to.

Excuse me, but asking who says it's a bird is precisely applying to the post, since the title of the post is "It Must Be A Bird".

It is quite evident it doesn't have to be a bird, just because someone claims it was a bird.

Those same people are also claiming birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species. So if they can't get it right with birds now known to mate and produce fertile offspring, what makes you think they got it right with something they have never observed alive? Especially when they refuse to correct such an obvious mistake with finches interbreeding?

All bluster and no substance. Let me be very clear - if you can't defend your stance - say so, but don't claim it has to be a bird just because you want it to be. Nor does it have to be a dinosaur - because they are nothing alike. Not that it matters since they all went extinct anyways.

Loudmouth · Jul 21, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Those same people are also claiming birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species.

How does this apply to the species presented in the opening post? Does that dinosaur breed with finches?

The Cadet · Jul 21, 2015

Smidlee said:
Nope it's doesn't look like a finch to me but more like a feathered Piltdown Man.

So does that mean that now whenever a religious discovery is uncovered, we can just say "looks like a clay Shroud Of Turin"?

Justatruthseeker · Jul 21, 2015

Loudmouth said:
How does this apply to the species presented in the opening post? Does that dinosaur breed with finches?

It certainly doesn't breed with birds, nor did birds evolve from them, since they are not even in the same clade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird

One is Dinosauria - the other Ornithurae.

Yes, I realize evolutionists like to make unscientific claims - but science does not even agree they belong to the same Clade. Which if one evolved from the other would be a necessity.

But that's because they once believed they were reptiles - now warm-blooded. And 10 years from now they'll be claiming something completely different when science advances some more and proves the current classification wrong too, like it did with the belief they were reptiles.

But let me repeat what you felt compelled to ignore.

"Those same people are also claiming birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species. So if they can't get it right with birds now known to mate and produce fertile offspring, what makes you think they got it right with something they have never observed alive? Especially when they refuse to correct such an obvious mistake with finches interbreeding?"

lasthero · Jul 21, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
It certainly doesn't breed with birds, nor did birds evolve from them, since they are not even in the same clade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird

One is Dinosauria - the other Ornithurae.

Yes, I realize evolutionists like to make unscientific claims - but science does not even agree they belong to the same Clade. Which if one evolved from the other would be a necessity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithurae

Does anything stand out to you on this page, Justa?

Justatruthseeker · Jul 21, 2015

lasthero said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithurae

Does anything stand out to you on this page, Justa?

Sure does - that you got turkey's classed wrong. And hope people won't catch your mistake of putting one in the clade Ornithurae and the other Dinosauria. Then put the other in the clade Aves - even if it already belongs to the clade Donosauria.

Like I said - can't be consistent from one post to the next. So is the clade Dinoauria, Ornithurae, or is it Aves - because it can't be all three. No other animal that is known to exist is classified as such. Because the reality is you have not a clue as to where to put them, so you put them in three different clades so evolutionists can pick and choose on any given day what clade they want them to belong to. Sad.

lasthero · Jul 21, 2015

No, Justa. What's sad is that you don't seem to understand how taxonomy works.

The Cadet · Jul 21, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
It certainly doesn't breed with birds, nor did birds evolve from them, since they are not even in the same clade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird

One is Dinosauria - the other Ornithurae.

Hmm. I wonder if there's any sort of hierarchical relationship between Dinosauria and Ornithurae. Let's start with the newer clade and work our way up, shall we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithurae

Is a subclade of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euornithes

Which is a subclade of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithothoraces

Which is a subclade of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euavialae

Which is a subclade of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avialae

Which is a subclade of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniraptoriformes

Which is a subclade of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theropoda

Which is a subclade of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

Huh. Fancy that. So they never really got out of their clade - they're still both proud members of Dinosauria. It's not that birds "evolved from dinosaurs", birds are dinosaurs.

(One of the nice things about the taxonomy pages on Wikipedia is that if you keep clicking the link directly above the taxon you're at now, you get to the next highest taxon. So basically what I did was just keep clicking one taxon higher until, lo and behold, somehow I ended up at Dinosauria. It makes these things really easy to check, and makes me wonder why you didn't.)

Papias · Jul 21, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
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..... Why you seem to have a problem figuring it out is beyond me.

It looks like you are putting kind = family or suborder. Going simply by a literal reading of scripture (lev. 19:19) , "kind" is closer to subspecies.

In Christ -

Papias

It must be a bird!

in vivo veritas

Newbie

in vivo veritas

in vivo veritas

in vivo veritas

SO COOL

Veteran

Contributor

Contributor

Veteran

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

SO COOL

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

SO COOL

Listening to TW4

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency