Scientists prove raptors had feathers.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

uh, no.

than pray tell, who did?
considering sin is a christian word, not heard of before christianity, by all means, enlighten me.

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

You're the one making the conclusions, not me. I wouldn't say that it WAS LOCALIZED, only that you can't show that it wasn't. I wouldn't say that it WAS AS ACCIDENTAL INBRED RECESSIVE TRAIT but rather that you're not showing it went further. And I'd be right every time. It is people like you that want to cling to unfounded conclusions based on highly limited evidence. Then, you take your own inability to not draw conclusions, and apply it to me? Damn, son. I know as a scientist that has done plenty of experiments AND currently as a computer programmer, that to come to a conclusion, you have to actually get all the way to the end- you can't assume anything. If you do, you'll likely (almost certainly) get the wrong results.
The heading says feathers. They found bumps on a bone. They then think that they evolved into birds. That's a bigger leap of faith than even that 'raptor could make.

There are huge ammounts of evidence to support the theory that birds evloved from dinosaurs. We have fossils of many different feathered dinosaurs. Have you ever looked at the finding in Liaoning, China?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

than pray tell, who did?
considering sin is a christian word, not heard of before christianity, by all means, enlighten me.

actually the Jews came up with the modern concept of sin, though the actual word "sin" wasn't first used for it until the 9th century... Remember, the first 5 books of the Old Testament are the Jewish Torah.

The generic Hebrew word for all sorts of sin (the Jews have 3 "levels" of sin, split up in severity based upon whether or not they knowingly broke Jewish law and whether or not they were raised within or outside Jewish law) is avera.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

than pray tell, who did?
considering sin is a christian word, not heard of before christianity, by all means, enlighten me.

Jesus had wrists, even though there was no word in the Greek language in Jesus' time for it.
Sin is disobedience against God.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by Dylith

There are huge ammounts of evidence to support the theory that birds evloved from dinosaurs. We have fossils of many different feathered dinosaurs. Have you ever looked at the finding in Liaoning, China?

Dino Hoax Was Mainly Made of Ancient Bird, Study Says

The Archaeoraptor fossil was introduced in 1999 and hailed as the missing evolutionary link between carnivorous dinosaurs and modern birds. It was fairly quickly exposed as bogus, a composite containing the head and body of a primitive bird and the tail and hind limbs of a dromaeosaur dinosaur, glued together by a Chinese farmer... The fossils come from the Liaoning Province of China, where thousands of flying and non-flying dinosaur fossils have been uncovered. The site has provided compelling evidence confirming the bird-dinosaur link.

Besides, fossils of near-modern birds have been found alongside dinos, way back in the Cretaceous period. How did birds get all the way evolved into birds before that time? Wouldn't they have left a better mark (more evidence)?

My guess is that if that 'raptor had feathers, that it was a completely independent evolutionary path, because birds were alreay flying around it.

It takes more than feathers to turn into a bird.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Jesus had wrists, even though there was no word in the Greek language in Jesus' time for it.
Sin is disobedience against God.

yes I know what the definition of "sin" is.

you're talking to a pagan. I don't believe in the concept of "sin". i believe in moral rights and wrongs, so by saying someone is just another sinner....um. doesn't anything to me. that's like saying he's just another purple people eater......

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Jesus had wrists, even though there was no word in the Greek language in Jesus' time for it.
Sin is disobedience against God.

jesus lived in Greece? hmm. another amazing revelation!!!

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Besides, fossils of near-modern birds have been found alongside dinos, way back in the Cretaceous period. How did birds get all the way evolved into birds before that time? Wouldn't they have left a better mark (more evidence)?

My guess is that if that 'raptor had feathers, that it was a completely independent evolutionary path, because birds were alreay flying around it.

It takes more than feathers to turn into a bird.

There was one that was proven to be a hoax, there are thousands of fossils taken from there of many different species. We have many fossil that indicate intermediary forms between dinosaurs and birds.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Besides, fossils of near-modern birds have been found alongside dinos, way back in the Cretaceous period. How did birds get all the way evolved into birds before that time?

Maybe the same way we evolved from monkey-like creatures, yet there are still monkeys?

[Grouch]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

You're the one making the conclusions, not me. I wouldn't say that it WAS LOCALIZED, only that you can't show that it wasn't. I wouldn't say that it WAS AS ACCIDENTAL INBRED RECESSIVE TRAIT but rather that you're not showing it went further. And I'd be right every time. It is people like you that want to cling to unfounded conclusions based on highly limited evidence. Then, you take your own inability to not draw conclusions, and apply it to me? Damn, son. I know as a scientist that has done plenty of experiments AND currently as a computer programmer, that to come to a conclusion, you have to actually get all the way to the end- you can't assume anything. If you do, you'll likely (almost certainly) get the wrong results.

The heading says feathers. They found bumps on a bone. They then think that they evolved into birds. That's a bigger leap of faith than even that 'raptor could make.

Kid, you are seriously fucking retarded.

You're too fucking stupid to even understand what the article says! Jesus man get your fucking head of your ass champ.

It article does not say that raptors evolved into birds, it never makes that claim They found "bumps" that are only found on feathered animals. It is logical then to assume that they had feathers, not just bumps that would otherwise indicate feathers but not actually having feathers.

You're not a scientist, you never were and you fail at pretending to be one.

[jimeigh]

Originally Posted by Publius

If Spielberg were more like George Lucas, he'd go back and re-do Jurassic Park's effects to replace the reptilian dinosaurs with feathered varieties ... thank god Spielberg isn't like Lucas.

in jurassic park 3, the raptors had some feathers

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

jesus lived in Greece? hmm. another amazing revelation!!!

Are you, like, really short or something? Because my post must have totally gone right over your head.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by Grouch

Kid, you are seriously fucking retarded.

Kid?


Okay.

You're too fucking stupid to even understand what the article says! Jesus man get your fucking head of your ass champ.

I wasn't responding just to what the article said, but Dumpy's interpretation of it.

It article does not say that raptors evolved into birds, it never makes that claim

I didn't say that the raptors evolved into birds. And if you say they didn't, then the raptors having feathers is completely irrelevant in the grand evolutionary scheme. The raptors could have evolved from birds for all you know. Any other implication of causality is a broad assumption, just like saying that people evolved from mice because we both have skin and hair. And, since mice have whiskers, we can even further assume that mice are more advanced than humans (and therefore further down the evolutionary chain of events).

They found "bumps" that are only found on feathered animals. It is logical then to assume that they had feathers, not just bumps that would otherwise indicate feathers but not actually having feathers.

And tell me, do birds have the same kind of bones and the 'raptor? Do you have ANY IDEA how different those bones are? Do you also understand that the bumps could be vestigal, a sign of an evolutionary change not yet complete, or one that is being done away with? The article doesn't even bring up this possibility, because they have a specific world-view they need to believe in, not because there is scientific evidence for it one way or another.
In the past, it was thought that dinosaurs had scales, like big lizards. In the future, it might be realized that they had colorful feathers, or feather-like things that we don't even have a name for yet. Either way, it does not prove or disprove anything about macroevolution theories.

You're not a scientist, you never were and you fail at pretending to be one.

You're making quite an assumption about my education and profession, and it is in error. Along with your name-calling, it only shows how little you can actually contribute, and how much, instead, you must resort to childish actions.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by Dylith

There was one that was proven to be a hoax, there are thousands of fossils taken from there of many different species. We have many fossil that indicate intermediary forms between dinosaurs and birds.

Cool. Where?

It would be interesting to solve the debate about who came first- the bird or the dino, since they both appear in the so-called fossil record at the same time, 250mya (during the triassic period of the Paleozoic era).

It's amazing to see that people actually believe that one evolved into the other. Even by your evolutionary theory, it is quite possible that birds and dinos are both evolutionary branches from an earlier, entirely different, creature from the devonian or even earlier.

In fact, this is more logical an assumption, since whatever humans and monkeys evolved from doesn't exist anymore, yet both monkeys and humans do still exist. In the same way, this pre-dino/bird creature didn't exist anymore, but both birds and dinos existed along side each other.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Are you, like, really short or something? Because my post must have totally gone right over your head.

so short.

i'm a midget.

[Grouch]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Kid?


Okay.

Remember you pulled the “Son” card. Very mature and expectantly hypocritical of you to do so.

Originally Posted by AVengeance

I wasn't responding just to what the article said, but Dumpy's interpretation of it.

So you’re talking about things you don’t even know about nor understand because you didn’t read it. Should we congratulate you for this?

Originally Posted by AVengeance

I didn't say that the raptors evolved into birds. And if you say they didn't, then the raptors having feathers is completely irrelevant in the grand evolutionary scheme.

That has to be the most ignorant stance I’ve ever heard form someone who has claimed to be a scientist over the internet. That the equivalent of saying Neanderthals are completely irrelevant in the grand evolutionary scheme because they didn’t evolve in to Homo sapiens sapiens. Think about what you are actually saying next time.

Originally Posted by AVengeance

The raptors could have evolved from birds for all you know. Any other implication of causality is a broad assumption, just like saying that people evolved from mice because we both have skin and hair. And, since mice have whiskers, we can even further assume that mice are more advanced than humans (and therefore further down the evolutionary chain of events).

Well then it’s a good think no one has said Raptors evolved directly into birds then right?

Originally Posted by AVengeance

And tell me, do birds have the same kind of bones and the 'raptor? Do you have ANY IDEA how different those bones are?

I won’t tell you. I’ll link you to the other real scientists far more educated on the subject than you are I can ever pretend to be. They will correct your ignorance for me.

SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Science -- Dinosaur bones show T. rex link to birds

The bone tissue is strongly similar to that made inside the bones of female birds – and no other living type of animal – when they are producing the hard shells of eggs just before they lay them, said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University in Raleigh.

Dinosaur News (Bird Bones) -ZoomDinosaurs.com
Microscopic structures like canaliculi (tiny passages in bone which connect blood vessels to cells) and collagen fibers (which strengthen bone) were painstakingly observed in thin sections of bones. It was found that birds and ornithomimid dinosaurs share similar arrangement of canaliculi,

See this link for a more detailed acont of the above: ScienceDaily: Microscopic Bone Evidence Supports Dinosaur-Bird Evolution Link

T. rex analysis supports dino-bird link - Science - MSNBC.com

After analyzing the tissues under a microscope, Schweitzer reported in 2005 that they looked similar to the cells and blood vessels found in ostrich bones.

Now that you can see that yes in fact there are similarities between bird bones and dinosaur bones. Maybe it is time for you to rethink your position. Additionally you are attempting to make a comparison between smaller birds of flight to larger heavier landed dinosaurs. This is an intellectual dishonest comparison by a supposed scientist. You should be comparing them to large flightless birds like the Ostrich, whose bones are much denser. Dense enough to be used as Dog chew toys for dogs with beef allergies.

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Do you also understand that the bumps could be vestigal, a sign of an evolutionary change not yet complete, or one that is being done away with? The article doesn't even bring up this possibility, because they have a specific world-view they need to believe in, not because there is scientific evidence for it one way or another.

Or perhaps they don’t bring it up because there are dozens of other similarities between dinosaurs and birds. But what you bring up, vestigial traits is important. It very concretely puts (at least these) dinosaurs on the same evolutionary path as birds. There is no indication that this would be an example of convergent evolution.

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Either way, it does not prove or disprove anything about macroevolution theories.

Complete and utter lie. It is one more example in the proof of dino-bird linkage.

Originally Posted by AVengeance

You're making quite an assumption about my education and profession, and it is in error. Along with your name-calling, it only shows how little you can actually contribute, and how much, instead, you must resort to childish actions.

So where did you get your PhD, what is it in? Where have you done research? Ect.

I’m sorry but I have yet to see you post in such a manner that would lead anyone to think you were a scientist.

Remember though, if you’re going to call someone “son” in a reply. At least have the guts to get called kid back.

Care to try again now?

[Galactic Gigolo]

Can they still be stopped by traffic cones?

[Grouch]

Origin