“The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of ‘dinosaurian science’ as evidence against the theory of evolution,” he said.
“To paraphrase one such individual, ‘This isn't science . . . This is comic relief.’” -->(!!!)<--

Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy

"...Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy - Slate"

No, it doesn't. But it does overwhelm the reasoning faculties of anyone who actually stops to think critically about the unscientific claims.

slate com/.../creationists_and_dinosaurs_answers_in_genesis_t...
"...Sep 19, 2012 - Creationists are on a campaign to “take dinosaurs back. ... that allowed dinosaurs to take to the air—"

Many creationists deny dinosaurs, fossil layers, evolution... so this is really not about taking "dinosaurs back".

It is about many scientists and science enthusiasts like myself, who are NOT "creationists" and have became disillusioned with the "meltdown of paleontology".

That dino-bird crowd claims any scientist who refuses to toe the line of erroneous Orthodoxy, is not a "real scientist" or "not legitimate". Or, the Ad Hominems such as "Alan Feduccia is part of the _older_ scientists.." as if he is simply "senile."

Only an illogical freshmen graduate would say a 70 million year old Velociraptor could birth a 165 million year old Archeopteryx.

"Most scientists.."

Intimidation. Bandwagon fallacy. A list please....

"...creationists deny the clear fossil record."

Yes they do. But MANY CREATIONISTS in the process have also studied and fully understand what is actually taught about the fossil record and Darwin's theory of natural selection, and realize... "these hacks aren't even following their own teachings about fossil layers. This is comic relief."

" ... The mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs, and that many “bird” ."

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT. But there is mounting evidence of fossil fakery. (Source) And in no small number. Some estimates are as high as 80%.

There is only a theory (based on FOSSIL EVIDENCE... GENETIC EVIDENCE) and fits within the Charles Darwin way of science, that:

"Crocodiles are the closest living relatives of the birds, sharing a common ancestor that lived around 240 million years ago and also gave rise to the dinosaurs."

The so-called "mountain of evidence"... is stacked AGAINST the illogical dinosaur-bird hypothesis.


"Crocodiles are the closest living relatives of the birds, sharing a common ancestor that lived around 240 million years ago and also gave rise to the dinosaurs."

And, as theorized, the farther back they dig into the fossil layers, the closer and closer the fossil forms will blend into "dinosaur-like birds" and "bird-like dinosaurs".

That's the complete opposite of the dino-bird theory which tries to convince the minds of otherwise intelligent, reason-minded people that a Velociraptor (70 mya) birthed an Archeopteryx (165 mya). A total disregard of the fossil record... this is madness and a meltdown of paleontology by the hacks, who genuinely(?) believe??

Religions hold unscientific myths dear to heart, don't they?

Yes... I need an anxiety pill because the lack of reason and logic in the dino-bird hypothesis is driving me mad... insane!! My reasoning faculties have reached a state of meltdown. A huge bruise to my brain.

I can feel the level of arrogance in a statement like

"...creationists deny the clear fossil record."

It is oh so "clear" that birds evolved from dinosaurs? Sounds much like the religious who swear how "clear" it is, that Allah or Jesus created the world in 6 days.

Anyone who is opposed to creationism, irregardless whether their baseless hypothesis makes rational sense -- mystically -- miraculously -- is of "greater intellect" "an all encompassing knowingness" and can never make any human error... all patent truths... how dare anyone question their arrogance!

Tho true, many YEC deny fossil evidence, period... so that makes their critics hypocrites... because the fanatic themselves deny "fossil evidence" every time they claim modern birds evolved from Cretaceous dinosaurs... utterly failing to follow the "clear fossil evidence" by proposing "Velociraptor" and ilk (70 mya) "evolved into birds," -- what was Archeopteryx (165 mya) -- predating the cretaceous dinosaurs, all the way back into the Jurassic?

Archaeopteryx was merely a figment of the imagination? We are expected... to deny... the fossil record... to accomodate such a grandiose hypothesis. When we refuse to... we are subjected to endure vitriol from people who believe in fairy tales and big red feathered dinosaurian predators.

Which by the way, has been debunked, but the dinosaur-bird hypothesizers will continue to paint bright red imaginary feathers on T. Rex and Velociraptor. By no means should we ever intrude on anyone's whimsical fantasies of science-fiction.

  • Ancient origins and multiple appearances of carotenoid-pigmented feathers in birds
    "...The broad palette of feather colours displayed by birds serves diverse biological functions, including communication and camouflage. Fossil feathers provide evidence that some avian colours, like black and brown melanins, have existed for at least 160 million years (Myr), but no traces of bright carotenoid pigments in ancient feathers have been reported."
  • Bright Red Feathered Dinosaurs
  • Winter cardinals don their brightest red feathers
    "...Cardinals get the pigments responsible for red feathers from their food. Cardinals, tanagers and goldfinches can't synthesize carotenoids - the pigments responsible for red, orange and yellow feathers. If the birds don't eat enough carotenoid-rich fruits and insects, feathers that grow in during the next molt will be less colorful. Dogwood, rose and Japanese honeysuckle berries are locally abundant sources of carotenoid pigments."
  • Molecular evidence for the origin of birds (backup)
  • Science speculation, like a powerful wind has taken hold of them by the seat of their pants and.. wherever the winds of fantasy, may blow them... there they are! And they call it "indisputable fact".

    If creation-science were ever a threat to scientific progress because it expects people to "deny fossil evidence"... well then what are the dinosaur to bird crowd but fossil-record deniers?

    Paleontology has been hijacked by something worse than creationism. The dinosaur to bird hypothesis is the wolf in sheep's clothing. At least Creationists are honest enough to confess they deny Evolution and Science. The Dinosaur to Bird Crowd merely pretend to adhere to scientific principals... but only when it is expedient to their hypothesis.

    As I've already explained, (Source) "bright red feathers" are in blatant contradiction -- a mocking insult to legitimate science, all that is known about wild animals? They evolve camouflage adapting them to their environment, either to hide from predators, or to be an effective predator, one must blend into their environment and take prey unaware. From a natural selection standpoint, bright feathers are a liability. However, perhaps the dinosaur-bird hypothesis crowd are trying to convince us of the cause of the dinosaur extinction, or that all T. Rexes were male.

    "...Real skeptics do not cling to absurd conspiracy theories for which there is no evidence, nor do they engage in obfuscation, misrepresentation, data fabrication, smear campaigns, or intimidation tactics. These are the methods of deniers"

    MISREPRESENTATION. Like using GREBE feathers and a long rope to extrapolate that somehow, those bird (grebe) feathers are "dinosaur" feathers.

    Instead of convincing the reader, they've hung themselves once anyone reads with comprehension, wakes up and realizes the press was purposely trying to obfuscate facts and deceive the public at large.

    DATA FABRICATION (See above).

    SMEAR CAMPAIGNS -- (See Alan Feduccia and other scientists who question the Orthodoxy).

    JUST ONE "FACT". And there are many facts. But denialists refuse to accept... a direct result of their own cognitive dissonance.

    Source: Oregon State University
    "For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories."
    (Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links, ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009).)

    So much for logic, reason, skepticism, questioning...

    "..."But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs," Ruben said. "However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.
    "A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset," Ruben said.
    The newest findings, the researchers said, are more consistent with birds having evolved separately from dinosaurs and developing their own unique characteristics, including feathers, wings and a unique lung and locomotion system."

    WHO are these "most scientists today" who accept that cretaceous dinosaurs evolved into birds"?


    There are many legitimate scientists who refuse to blindly accept the hypothesis.

    ... In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
    This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea."

    The bandwagon argument that

    "Most biologists accept it as conclusive proof that dinosaurs sired birds..."

    Most? Is that so? Good old argument fallacy -- to intimidate other scientists to cave under the pressure. Nothing more.

    The more I read of that hypothesis... and on my own, do a little "fact checking" and compare the details with actual science.. the angrier I get, that the press are fabricating "evidence" in its ongoing pursuit to miseducate the public at large and nobody corrects it... any scientist who dares to correct the misinformation will become the target of a smear campaign and it makes me even angrier at the sheep, who blindly swallow the misinformation... and the asenine disciples, on the forefront of promoting blatant lies... like this "cool toy"...


    Kids will sadly, never grow up understanding something as simple as "camouflage" and "natural selection" and the "arms race" and all the cool, neat facts about real nature and WHY animals have certain peculiar adaptive traits... real biology... like spots on giraffes, and dull gray on large predators and prey alike.
    The education system is on the decline, sucking down the tubes and at this point, I don't feel there's any hope of going back.

    Headline: "Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy"

    Does it take a myth to debunk a myth? Explain how that works.

    But... not because it's "truth".

    Not because it's a matter of fact-denial. Nobody is scoring brownie points. No doubt this whole issue has drawn ire of some "creationists" -- but not for the reason pseudo-Darwinists claim.
    The absurdity of the claims -- one can not help but recognize pseudo-paleontology. Who ... really believes the dino-bird hypothesis? A hypothesis which has made a mockery of paleontology... all the sensational headlines -- pawning GREBE FEATHERS in amber off, as "dinosaur". You can fool some people some of the time, perhaps most people, most of the time... but I am not deceived.

    And... the thing is, creationists know it... OH NO DOUBT creationists are in fact, LEARNING all about fossil layers, extinct organisms, geological eras, even what natural selection really teaches and -- quickly come to realize, the dino-bird hypothesis is in contradiction with what Charles Darwin taught... the dino-bird hype is not truth. It isn't even scientific, or Darwinian, and the Creationists know it.

    It drives any sane person completely out of their mind, starting with how the fossil record is taken completely out of order and relying on hypothetical TIME TRAVEL to give rise to birds. Velociraptor arose around 70 million years ago... and somehow he fathered a bird that lived 100 million before him?

    There's a magical fairy tale.

    Red feathers didn't exist 165 million years ago and yet bright red t. rex cartoons flood the internet, like the myth of santa claus in his giant red suit.

    Giant predators aren't adorned in bright red feathers. Even a 3rd Grade elementary school kid knows this. (Well kids did know, until some began teaching the pseudo-science and miseducating children). The meltdown and demise of education about nature.

    I suppose that if a minority of the scientific community come together to propagate a deliberate falsehood... it will drum up intense interest in the evolution debate -- because the lies are so profound and blatantly, patently false, that it is *worthy* of stern debunking.

    Paleontology loses its credibility is the only cost.

    The dinosaur-bird hypothesist fanatics get angry... furious... attacking any scientists who dare question the baseless orthodoxy of "dinosaur to bird evolution".

    They boast to possess superior "critical thinking skills" of a "skeptic" til you dare to question what YOUR OWN POWER OF LOGIC screams is patently untrue... and to that, they ridicule you as a "creationist" and demand blind belief and faith in their dogma and orthodoxy. Nobody DARE question those bright red feathers on large predators! (Never mind that they know brightly colored feathers didn't exist in the Jurassic and Cretaceous). The dino-bird hypothesis reaks with the stinch of a religion... what it lacks in facts is made up for in arm-twisting intimidation from its devoted disciples. Intimidation and outspoken sensationalist media is about the only thing in its corner to keep it afloat because there's nothing truthful or intellectually honest about any of it.

    There's more people than ever, who accept evolution and more "open minded" and liberal than ever ... but for some reason the decline continues. Maybe because some of what is being pawned off as "education" is everything but. (Source)

    They have hijacked and scrambled the fossil record with their whimsical, baseless hypothesis. They don't care about adhering to the "mountain of clear evidence in the fossil record" themselves. They claim they do... an arrogant claim... their "so scientific mindedness"... their "superiority".

    But they deny the fossil record like Creationists.

    Why do they show T-Rex or Velociraptor -- all the way into the Cretaceous, near the extinction of dinosaurs and make all their "bird connections" to these beasts?

    Why not focus on the first true theropods? In the Triassic. Somebody's gotta do it! Explaining how Archeopteryx (165 mya) supposedly "evolved from theropod dinosaurs".

    "...As with all such evolutionary transitions, it's impossible to identify the exact moment when the first dinosaur walked the earth: for a few million years during the middle Triassic period, some reptile species would have evinced a CONFUSING MIXTURE of archosaur and dinosaur characteristics. For example, the two-legged archosaur Marasuchus (sometimes identified as Lagosuchus) looked remarkably like an early theropod dinosaur, and along with genera like Saltopus and Procompsognathus may well have inhabited that in-between "shadow zone" that has proven so baffling to paleontologists. (The recent discovery of a new genus of archosaur, Asilisaurus, may push back the dinosaur family tree even further, to 240 million years ago; the implications of this are still being sorted out, as are the implications of dinosaur-like footprints in Europe dating as far back as 250 million years ago!.).."

    Oh, but... those dinosaurs weren't made famous and lovable by Jurassic Park and aren't ingrained into the minds of people... nobody will take interest or care... no big stuffed Red t-rex toys and other collectibles like in John Hammond's gift shop.

    These people say they hate Jurassic Park because it too is in contradiction with what is known about the true science of dinosaurs and birds, but they depend on the hollywood movies and sensationalist media to promote the drivel of fantasies of dinosaurs evolving into birds. The sensationalist headline proclaims, "Pictures: "Incredible" Dinosaur Feathers Found in Amber" but the article is slow to confess,

    "Tiny coiled barbs—useful for water uptake—on an ancient, amber-encased feather are much like those on feathers of modern diving birds such as grebes."

    GREBES... whose ancestors lived during the Cretaceous.

    Who do they presume they are deceiving except those who lack a working knowledge of birds from the Jurassic and Cretaceous?

    "The first placental mammals appeared at the beginning of the Cretaceous. The Cretaceous saw the rise and extinction of the toothed birds, Hesperornis and Ichthyornis. The earliest fossils of birds resembling loons, grebes, cormorants, pelicans, flamingos, ibises, rails, and sandpipers were from the Cretaceous.

    An interesting article written by a Creationist (RIGHTFULLY SO) attacking those widespread lies in the media, about "dinosaur feathers" trapped in amber. Even the National Geographic article added (reluctantly) that it was a GREBE feather. :-(
    Now WHO is it that goes about boasting of their "superior intellect" over those who refuse to blindly believe in fairy-tales... myths... and sensationalist media drivel?

    Grebe Left Imaginary Dinosaur Feathers in Amber
    “Dinosaur feathers” are all over the news again, thanks to a paper in Science revealing feathers in amber found in Canada. But whose feathers are they? Inferences from other sources, not from the amber, were brought into the interpretation, even though the discoverers admitted, “There is currently no way to refer the feathers in amber with certainty to either birds or the rare small theropods from the area.” And modern-looking feathers of diving birds like grebes were also found in the same amber, leading to numerous questions about what can rightly be inferred from the fossils themselves."

    In other words, the press pawned a load of hype on the public and then expect the public to "respect" them.

    This is suppose to "enlighten" the public about Science. How? With outright deception and myths?

    Will Rogers — 'It takes a lifetime to build a good reputation, but you can lose it in a minute.'

    1 comment:

    Unknown said...

    Stop accusing us of denying all science just because we disagree with one theory. All we do is interpret the same evidence differently. You see a progression of species, I see a mass graveyard brought on by an ancient apocalypse. Sure, some of us can be unwavering in our views, but evolutionists can be outright emphatic, vitriolic, intolerant and cruel.

    Interesting Related Links

    For the Anti-Creationism Darwinist Among Us

    Thales of Miletus

    My Other Blog:
    Genesis in the Ancient World
    "The Jews integrated into Greek culture around 300 BC. Notably, much of the modern Biblical literature is actually Greek. Enlightened Greek thought becomes apparent in the opening of Genesis. "One of the first evolutionary theories was proposed by Thales of Miletus (640–546 BC) in the province of Ionia on the coast near Greece followed by Anaximander (550 B.C.) who speculated that life evolved from the water; lower forms of life, in a very primitive precursor to evolutionary theory."

    Namely this *ouch!*

    Evolution and Paleontology in the Ancient World
    "...For Anaximander, the world had arisen from an undifferentiated, indeterminate substance, the apeiron. The Earth, which had coalesced out of the apeiron, had been covered in water at one stage, with plants and animals arising from mud. Humans were not present at the earliest stages; they arose from fish. This poem was quite influential on later thinkers, including Aristotle.
    Had Anaximander looked at fossils? Did he study comparative fish and human anatomy? Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what evidence Anaximander used to support his ideas. His theory bears some resemblance to evolutionary theory, but also seems to have been derived from various Greek myths, such as the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha, in which peoples or tribes are born from the Earth or from stones. His concept of the apeiron seems similar to the Tao of Chinese philosophy and religion, and to the "formless and void" Earth of the Hebrew creation account and other creation myths. However, even though Anaximander's ideas drew on the religious and mythical ideas of his time, he was still one of the first to attempt an explanation of the origin and evolution of the cosmos based on natural laws."

    (Source, ucmp.berkeley.edu History)

    [Sadly, what the site fails to mention is that the oldest known biblical manuscripts date no earlier than around 300 B.C., therefore, Anaximander (610-545 B.C.) could not have based any of his concepts on Biblical Hebrew. However it can be deduced, the Hebrew Genesis account was borrowed from mainstream Greek philosophy.] [The analysis by Harvard and several other University sources are quite impressive: (Scala Naturae of the Bible, Charles Darwin and Ancient Greek Philosophy)]