Dinosaur with feathers and scales?

[River Jordan]

You should read up more on what the Catholic Church actually teaches. It neither endorses nor excludes evolution as a possibility, but affirms as a literal event the story of Adam and Eve and the fall of man. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution This should prove more fruitful than quoting a pope out of context.

Out of context? That's a pretty serious accusation. Exactly how did I do that (assuming you feel the moral obligation to not just accuse someone of wrongdoing and fail to back it up).

Oh, and the "doctrine of demons" I was referring to is that faith and science are irreconcilable enemies. I'm sure an intelligent and rational person would have gleaned that clear meaning from my post. I'm sorry you couldn't.

LOL! All righty then.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Like what? Be specific.

I was specific. I asked you not be intellecually lazy and just make assertions. Your response was the usuall string of question marks followed by meaningless rhetoric.

We have fossil dinosaur specimens that show the presence of feathers. The more we look, the more dino's with feathers we find, including this latest one that had both feathers and scales. Given creationism's claims about "kinds", these specimens lead to some obvious questions, which you tried to answer.

Firstly, whether or not all the fossils that evolutionists claim are evidence of "feathers" is disputable. Secondly, you have not proven that these "dinosaurs with feathers" are not in actual fact birds, which has happened in the past. And thirdly, you still haven't explained what the point of this thread actually is, dispite all my constant attempts to get you to do so.

That led to an obvious question about whether extant flightless birds like emus, ostriches, and penguins were in the "bird kind". You answered, "It depends" on whether they could fly at the time of creation. When I asked if you had any evidence that they could fly at the time of creation, you answered "No I don't". And then you got irritated when I assumed that you believed extant flightless birds were in the "bird kind".

Ignoring the fact that I didn't get "irritated", but rather, as usual, simply asked you to support your claims, you still haven't shown me anywhere, and definitely not in the above comment, where I claimed that birds that are flightless today were ever in the "bird kind". I know what I say, and what I don't say. That's what seems to irritate you.

Thus we find ourselves at the current point. All I'm asking you to do is clarify your position. Do you believe extant flightless birds (e.g., ostriches, emus, penguins, kiwis, etc.) are in the "bird kind"? If so, based on what characteristics? If not, what "kind" are they?

Seriously, who cares what I "believe"? My beliefs don't effect reality and neither do yours. If I was trying to assert that flightless birds were or were not of the bird kind then you would have a point. But I'm not doing any such thing. You started this thread, not me, and all I have done so far is to verify whether or not you have a point, either in support of naturalistic evolution, or one that disproves or invalidates creationism. Finding more and more "feathers" does neither, because we don't know whether or not these creatures had feathers to begin with, or whether or not they could or couldn't fly.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Out of context? That's a pretty serious accusation. Exactly how did I do that (assuming you feel the moral obligation to not just accuse someone of wrongdoing and fail to back it up).


LOL! All righty then.

I did back it up. With a link.

 

[River Jordan]

I was specific. I asked you not be intellecually lazy and just make assertions. Your response was the usuall string of question marks followed by meaningless rhetoric.

Well, without any actual specific examples of what you're talking about, it's just empty rhetoric.

Firstly, whether or not all the fossils that evolutionists claim are evidence of "feathers" is disputable.

On what basis?

Secondly, you have not proven that these "dinosaurs with feathers" are not in actual fact birds, which has happened in the past.

How do we tell if they are birds or not?

And thirdly, you still haven't explained what the point of this thread actually is, dispite all my attempts to get you to do so.

Um...I just outlined it for you.

you still haven't shown me anywhere, and definitely not even in the above comment, where I claimed that birds that are flightless today were ever in the "bird kind".

??????????? That's what I'm asking you!! Do you believe extant flightless birds are in the "bird kind"?

Seriously, who cares what I "believe"? My beliefs don't effect reality and neither do yours. If I was trying to assert that flightless birds were or were not of the bird kind then you would have a point. But I'm not doing any such thing. You started this thread, not me, and all I have done so far is to verify whether or not you have a point, either in support of naturalistic evolution, or that disproves or invalidates creationism. Finding more and more "feathers" does neither, because we don't know whether or not these creatures had feathers to begin with.

Oh...well then, if you don't care enough about this to discuss it, that's fine. Thanks for your input.

I did back it up. With a link.

That link does not show in any way where I quoted John Paul II out of context, as you accused. I even provided a link to the full text of his address that I quoted from.

You need to take what I quoted, compare it to what the Pope actually said, and demonstrate how I misrepresented his words. If you can't do that, then you are guilty of making a false accusation against me.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

That link does not show in any way where I quoted John Paul II out of context, as you accused. I even provided a link to the full text of his address that I quoted from.

You need to take what I quoted, compare it to what the Pope actually said, and demonstrate how I misrepresented his words. If you can't do that, then you are guilty of making a false accusation against me.

The link I gave you accurately represents the Catholic Church's teaching on evolution from many different angles. It's not something that can be captured by quoting a pope, which by the way, is not how Church teaching is formed. I can assure you that the late Pope John Paul II absolutely did NOT share your arrogant certainty that man descended from crap flinging apes. Enlisting him to buttress your foolish belief system is in vain.

 

[River Jordan]

The link I gave you accurately represents the Catholic Church's teaching on evolution from many different angles. It's not something that can be captured by quoting a pope, which by the way, is not how Church teaching is formed.

That's all well and good, but you still haven't shown where I quoted the Pope out of context.

I can assure you that the late Pope John Paul II absolutely did NOT share your arrogant certainty that man descended from crap flinging apes. Enlisting him to buttress your foolish belief system is in vain.

Had I said any of that, your post would be relevant. Since I didn't, it isn't.

So can I now take your continued inability to show where I quoted the Pope out of context to mean that your accusation against me was baseless? And should I give up all hope of any sort of apology?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Apology?

 

[River Jordan]

Yeah, that's what I thought. Disappointing, but not surprising.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Well, without any actual specific examples of what you're talking about, it's just empty rhetoric.

OK, we can play that game if you like. Specific example:

"You can just sit in your chair, throw rocks at the scientists who actually do the work, and declare yourself superior."

So ignoring the fact that I'm not sitting in a chair at all, where did I "throw rocks" at any scientists? Where did I declare myself superior?

On what basis?

On the basis that it IS disputed. Or are you trying to say that everyone who examines these fossils are ALL in agreement that they are feathers? The following papers indicate that such claims have been questioned:

1.Feduccia, A., Lingham-Soliar, T., and Hinchliffe, J.R., Do Featured Dinosaurs Exist?: Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontological Evidence, J. Morphology 266:125–166, 2005 | DOI: 10.1002/jmor.10382; Published Online: 10 October 2005.

2.Lingham-Soliar, T., Alan Feduccia, A. and Wang, X., A new Chinese specimen indicates that ‘protofeathers’ in the Early Cretaceous theropod dinosaur Sinosauropteryx are degraded collagen fibres, Proc. Royal Soc. B | doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0352, Published online 23 May 2007.

Now before you get all cocky and ask me whether or not I have read these papers then I will be honest and say that I have not. All I am doing is pointing out evidence that indicates that fossils that were assumed to be feathers have been given alternative explanations, such as degraded collagen fibres.

How do we tell if they are birds or not?

According to what classification system? I mean, that's a stupid question isn't it? I doesn't really prove anything knowing whether or not they are "birds". What you need to do, in order to support your beliefs, is to prove that these "birds" were not "birds" to begin with. That is what you should be doing, but you don't even seem to understand what the point is you are trying to get across.

Um...I just outlined it for you.

Um... no you didn't. I, on the other hand just did.

??????????? That's what I'm asking you!! Do you believe extant flightless birds are in the "bird kind"?

Calm down.

Oh...well then, if you don't care enough about this to discuss it, that's fine. Thanks for your input.

Now, wait a minute... where did I say I didn't care enough about this to discuss it. I have been discussing and discussing and discussing... all along. I just didn't realize that this thread was primarily concerned with beliefs. But perhaps you need to more clearly explain what the purpose of this thread is...

Oh, that's right.. I already asked you to do that... oh well.. B)

Had I said any of that, your post would be relevant. Since I didn't, it isn't.

I know that wasn't directed at me, but....oh the irony! :lol:

 

[River Jordan]

OK, we can play that game if you like. Specific example:

"You can just sit in your chair, throw rocks at the scientists who actually do the work, and declare yourself superior."

So ignoring the fact that I'm not sitting in a chair at all, where did I "throw rocks" at any scientists? Where did I declare myself superior?

Um...I have to ask...what is wrong with you? That was from a post to Aspen that made absolutely no mention of you.

On the basis that it IS disputed. Or are you trying to say that everyone who examines these fossils are ALL in agreement that they are feathers? The following papers indicate that such claims have been questioned:

1.Feduccia, A., Lingham-Soliar, T., and Hinchliffe, J.R., Do Featured Dinosaurs Exist?: Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontological Evidence, J. Morphology 266:125–166, 2005 | DOI: 10.1002/jmor.10382; Published Online: 10 October 2005.

2.Lingham-Soliar, T., Alan Feduccia, A. and Wang, X., A new Chinese specimen indicates that ‘protofeathers’ in the Early Cretaceous theropod dinosaur Sinosauropteryx are degraded collagen fibres, Proc. Royal Soc. B | doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0352, Published online 23 May 2007.

Now before you get all cocky and ask me whether or not I have read these papers then I will be honest and say that I have not. All I am doing is pointing out evidence that indicates that fossils that were assumed to be feathers have been given alternative explanations, such as degraded collagen fibres.

Hilarious. First, those papers are 9 and 7 years old, respectively, so they obviously aren't about the specimen described in the OP. Second, both papers are about "protofeathers", not actual full feathers such as what was present on the specimen described in the OP. So you kind of missed the mark there.

But that's to be expected from someone who goes around citing papers he's never bothered to read.

According to what classification system? I mean, that's a stupid question isn't it? I doesn't really prove anything knowing whether or not they are "birds". What you need to do, in order to support your beliefs, is to prove that these "birds" were not "birds" to begin with. That is what you should be doing, but you don't even seem to understand what the point is you are trying to get across.

Yeah...thanks again for your input.

where did I say I didn't care enough about this to discuss it.

You asked, "who cares what I "believe"?" The answer apparently is no one.

 

[aspen]

i think creationists have this idea that evolution teaches that first human had bateria as their parents.......and this strikes them as absurd and ridiculous - and it is ridiculous, but it is not what evolution teaches. See, the changes in DNA are slow - in real time they can barely be tracked and seem like examples of natural selection. This is because natural selection is one frame in the movie of evolution, so to speak.

WormW. - what do you mean by Darwinian Evolution? Seems to me that the theory of evolution has come a long way since Darwin. People who disagree with modern Psychology theories and practices might make the same mistake if they dumped everything they hated the most under the term 'Freudian Psychology because the field of psychology has also developed greatly since Freud.

Finally, Up - what kind does a duckbill platypus belong to? Seems to me that it is a good example of a transition species between bird/reptile and mammal

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

i think creationists have this idea that evolution teaches that first human had bateria as their parents.......and this strikes them as absurd and ridiculous - and it is ridiculous, but it is not what evolution teaches. See, the changes in DNA are slow - in real time they can barely be tracked and seem like examples of natural selection. This is because natural selection is one frame in the movie of evolution, so to speak.

WormW. - what do you mean by Darwinian Evolution? Seems to me that the theory of evolution has come a long way since Darwin. People who disagree with modern Psychology theories and practices might make the same mistake if they dumped everything they hated the most under the term 'Freudian Psychology because the field of psychology has also developed greatly since Freud.

Finally, Up - what kind does a duckbill platypus belong to? Seems to me that it is a good example of a transition species between bird/reptile and mammal

Creationists believe that evolution teaches that humans evolved from apes. You don't actually ever talk to creationists, do you?

 

[River Jordan]

Creationists believe that evolution teaches that humans evolved from apes. You don't actually ever talk to creationists, do you?

And that cows turn into whales. :lol:

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Um...I have to ask...what is wrong with you? That was from a post to Aspen that made absolutely no mention of you.

Oh, sorry...I just thought that since you and aspen were discussing ME on an open forum I might be entitled to respond to it!

How silly of me! :lol:

Hilarious. First, those papers are 9 and 7 years old, respectively, so they obviously aren't about the specimen described in the OP. Second, both papers are about "protofeathers", not actual full feathers such as what was present on the specimen described in the OP. So you kind of missed the mark there.
But that's to be expected from someone who goes around citing papers he's never bothered to read.

No, I didn't miss the mark at all, you did. I simply said, which you would have noticed if you read my comment more carefully, that "whether or not ALL the fossils that evolutionists claim are evidence of feathers is disputable", which points back to your assertion that "the more we look, the more dino's with feathers we find", not the OP! All I'm doing is providing the historical backdrop showing that claims such as these have come and gone constantly and many of then just run out in the sand when the dust settles. Evolutionists have been adamant about many things that have turned out to flop. Now you seem to be claiming that this time, they got it all figured out, and in order to do that you point to a document that, just as I pointed out before, "suggests" and says "probably"...

And all I am saying is yeah... maybe..

So uh... again... what's your point?

Finally, Up - what kind does a duckbill platypus belong to?

Probably the platypus kind.

Seems to me that it is a good example of a transition species between bird/reptile and mammal

That's probably because all you need in order for it to "seem" like a transition is shared traits. That's your presupposition and you're entitled to it.

 

[River Jordan]

Oh, sorry...I just thought that since you and aspen were discussing ME on an open forum I might be entitled to respond to it!

Ok then. Related to the field we've been discussing (paleontology), what work have you done?

No, I didn't miss the mark at all, you did. I simply said, which you would have noticed if you read my comment more carefully, that "whether or not ALL the fossils that evolutionists claim are evidence of feathers is disputable", which points back to your assertion that "the more we look, the more dino's with feathers we find", not the OP! All I'm doing is providing the historical backdrop showing that claims such as these have come and gone constantly and many of then just run out in the sand when the dust settles.

No, you cited two papers about protofeathers that you've never read. They had nothing to do with the dino specimens that have actual, full feathers. I understand what you tried to do, but you failed in a pretty funny manner.

Evolutionists have been adamant about many things that have turned out to flop. Now you seem to be claiming that this time, they got it all figured out, and in order to do that you point to a document that, just as I pointed out before, "suggests" and says "probably"...

I'm sure that's what you believe. But as you said, who cares what you believe.

And all I am saying is yeah... maybe..

So uh... again... what's your point?

I explained it once, but obviously it's beyond your ability.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Ok then. Related to the field we've been discussing (paleontology), what work have you done?

I'm no more a palentologist than you are, so what's your point? (I 'm getting a Little tired of asking that question :blink

No, you cited two papers about protofeathers that you've never read. They had nothing to do with the dino specimens that have actual, full feathers. I understand what you tried to do, but you failed in a pretty funny manner.

I never "tried to do" anything other than I described in my previous post. You are the one who brought the term "full feathers" into the discussion after I already made my point, in which I made NO attempt to distinguish between "protofeathers" and "full feathers". You are just trying to move the goalposts in order to make it appear as though I am claiming something I haven't.

I'm sure that's what you believe. But as you said, who cares what you believe.

Well, you obvously do since you were the one who asked me what I believed. All I did was point out that as far as I can see in the context of this discussion, what I believe is irrelevant. Now suddenly you a 180 and claim that no one cares what I believe. Are you the spokesman for everyone?

I explained it once, but obviously it's beyond your ability.

No you didn't. All you have done is point to a paper that suggests.. and says probably... and so on. And since feathers and scales on a dinosaur doesn't really prove anything other than that they had feathers and scales, all that is left for you to do is sit and pretend that you have made a point. Why not just be honest instead?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Daddy, when I get big I wanna be a soccer player and a famous scientist.

That's right river. My little princess will show those fundies.

Remember my sweet. Nobody else knows anything. Only you.

Only me?

Yes River only you.

 

[aspen]

ummm....apparently you do not talk with evolutionists very much Vale.....if you still believe that we are descended from apes. oh nevermind this has already been discussed on the board.....you chose to ignore it

 

[Tex]

@UppsalaDragby
@ChristianJuggarnaut

There wasn't any point in supporting my claims. The support would be seen as garbage by those who do not care for truth and are blinded by pride.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

@UppsalaDragby
@ChristianJuggarnaut

There wasn't any point in supporting my claims. The support would be seen as garbage by those who do not care for truth and are blinded by pride.

In other words, you can just blurt out anything you want, and claim that anyone who disagrees with it "rejects the truth" and is "blinded by pride". Not a very arrogant attitude is it?

I do my best to support what I say. I might not always suceed in that ambition, but at least I put a certian amount of effort to do so. If all I have an opinion I usually express it as an opinion without being so absolutely full of myself that I simply claim by my own authority that what I believe, or what i have been taught by others to believe, is the undeniable truth.

So ... if there wasn't any point in suporting your claim, then neither was there in any point in making it.