“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.’” -->(!!!)<--

The Religious-like Dogma of Dinosaur to Bird Evolution

0

Harkening back to a post during January 2015, in an article titled “Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy” on Slate, the assertion is made, “…The mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs, and that many ‘bird’…”

…”Most scientists…”

'zat so? “Most…Scientists…”

Today, whilst reading an article by a progressive Agnostic, I came across the following statement aimed at “religious-minded” folks. How poignantly stated too!

Comments such as “all” or even “‘most’ scientists believe birds evolved from dinosaurs.…” is an absurd assertion. How they conducted their poll and statistics on “most scientists” is a mystery in itself however,

Even if it were so, what does that prove?

Nothing. Let's take it straight from the mouth of the most vehement anti-religious among Darwinists:

“I noticed your reliance upon phrases such as, “modern scholarship is virtually unanimous,” “on this score scholarship is united,” “almost all scholars are agreed,“ and finally, “this seems to be the conclusion of most modern scholars, even critical ones.” I take exception to such a method of argument. A man's opinions are not logically strengthened by the number of men who agree with him (unless his logic functions like that of an evangelist).”

*Ouch.*

Personally, I could care no less about “opinions” so much as I care about fossils and actual geological dating methods.

The “empirical evidence” stands on the side of the minority of scientists who actually adhere to valid time-tested scientific principals and their counterparts who have enough knowledge to actually know to avoid “pop science” which is virtually the same as mainstream pseudo-scientific garbage. Were these elusive statistics culled from a peer reviewed journal, or perhaps like the dinosaur-to-bird hypothesis, plucked from thin air? Legitimacy of theories comes solely by being based upon the “clear fossil evidence” that birds existed before cretaceous theropod dinosaurs, whether the conclusions are the ones desired or not. Whimsical myths and fantasies cooked up by some renegade scientist seeking to stir up controversy of “70 million year old cretaceous theropod dinosaurs evolving into 160 million year old birds that lived 25 million to 80 million years BEFORE said theropod dinosaurs…” get some controversies started … sell some books. Naturally, some scientists who are actual bird experts reject this silly hypothetical nonsense.

If your hypothesis contradicts the fossil record, above, your hypothesis is wrong and your hypothesis needs tweaking.

As one Google hit of Wikipedia so eloquently puts it: “Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

Oh those darn evangelical dinosaur-to-bird hypothesizers! What shall modern science do with them?

Punchline

“…creationists deny the clear fossil record…”

and what do these fools do, every time they suggest that a 70 million year old velociraptor evolved into a 160 million year old Archaeopteryx?

Read More »
Posted by No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

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)]