20 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by humyreptileOnly birds have feathers. So if feathers are found, it obviously came from a bird.
FALSE!
http://www.mapoflife.org/topics/topic_345_Gliding-in-feathered-reptiles/
“...A number of reptile species have been discovered in the Mesozoic fossil record, bearing feathers …
…
….Within the last decade, a number of astonishingly preserved Mes don't know what you are talking about when you are talking about biology and palaeontology.
n
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Zoology) any of the cold-blooded vertebrates constituting the class Reptilia, characterized by lungs, an outer covering of horny scales or plates, and young produced in amniotic eggs. The class today includes the tortoises, turtles, snakes, lizards, and crocodiles...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reptile
Reptiles (Reptilia) are members of a class of air-breathing, ectothermic (cold-blooded) vertebrates which are characterized by skin covered in scales and/or scutes. They are tetrapods, either having four limbs or being descended from four-limbed ancestors. Four living orders are typically recognized:
Crocodilia (crocodiles, gavials, caimans, and alligators): 23 species
Sphenodontia (tuataras from New Zealand): 2 species
Squamata (lizards, snakes, and worm lizards): approximately 9,150 species[1]
Testudines (turtles, terrapins and tortoises): over 300 species
Aves (birds), which are not cold-blooded or scaly, are not included in this list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile
Notice what it says there. Aves (birds), which are not cold-blooded or scaly, are not included in this list.
bird
n
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) any warm-blooded egg-laying vertebrate of the class Aves, characterized by a body covering of feathers and forelimbs modified as wings. Birds vary in size between the ostrich and the humming bird.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Bird
SUMMARY
Birds are warm-blooded and have feathers and wings.
Reptiles are cold-blooded and scaly and do not have wings.
20 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsIf it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it is likely a duck. There are very finely detailed impressions of feathers on the dino fossils if you care to look with an open mind, but we all know that won't happen. That is not speculation, that is real science in action pointing out stuff you don't want to hear, vision of you plugging up your ears with your fingers going Nyana Nyana Nyaner can't hear your, can't hear you .
There is only speculation as to what the fossil record tells us. It depends on the worldview of those speculation as to what the conclusion will be. Only birds have feathers. So if feathers are found, it obviously came from a bird. I have thought dinosaurs were classified as only reptiles, but perhaps they are any large creature, such as hugh sea monsters, dragons, the woolly mammoth, and hugh birds.
20 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseIt's a BIRD!
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it is likely a duck. There are very finely detailed impressions of feathers on the dino fossils if you care to look with an open mind, but we all know that won't happen. That is not speculation, that is real science in action pointing out stuff you don't want to hear, vision of you plugging up your ears with your fingers going Nyana Nyana Nyaner can't hear your, can't hear you .
20 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsPenguin has pointed out some errors. Can you state clearly whether you admit that these are errors in the videos and whether you think they impact on the overall message of the videos. If you do not think they are errors can you explain why not.
By the way I haven't noticed any errors in the video I posted on this thread. If you find any, maybe that is what we should discuss.
If you do think they are errors, can you explain how you missed them when you watched them yourself?
20 May 12
7 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsTotally irrelevant; those particular modern definitions for classifying animals happen to be for those animals living at the present and not those that lived in the very distant past.
reptile
n
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Zoology) any of the cold-blooded vertebrates constituting the class Reptilia, characterized by lungs, an outer covering of horny scales or plates, and young produced in amniotic eggs. The class today includes the tortoises, turtles, snakes, lizards, and croc ...[text shortened]... d and have feathers and wings.
Reptiles are cold-blooded and scaly and do not have wings.[/b]
The fossils PROVE that some past lizards had feathers.
Just LOOK at the fossil in the link I gave you and tell us if that is a fossil of a bird or lizard:
http://www.mapoflife.org/topics/topic_345_Gliding-in-feathered-reptiles/
-and stop pretending such a creature never existed when we have fossil proof that it did exist.
well? tell us all; is that a fossil of a bird or a lizard?
Insistently; birds also have scales on their feet just like lizards do -a trait inherited from their lizard ancestors. And feathers are just modified scales and made of exactly the same organic substance as lizard scales.
20 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by humy
Totally irrelevant; those particular modern definitions for classifying animals happen to be for those animals living at the present and not those that lived in the very distant past.
The fossils PROVE that some past lizards had feathers.
Just LOOK at the fossil in the link I gave you and tell us if that is a fossil of a bird or lizard:
http://www.mapofl ...[text shortened]... athers are just modified scales and made of exactly the same organic substance as lizard scales.
Insistently; birds also have ...
that was a misprint.
That should have been “Incidentally; birds also have ... “ -my spell checker keeps correcting my spelling mistakes to the wrong words!
20 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhousepig
It's a bird. Right. 100 million year old dinosaur with feathers that are not on wings but on the body itself and it is a bird. Sure. IT COULD HAPPEN. And pigs can fly and I have a great bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
n
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) any artiodactyl mammal of the African and Eurasian family Suidae, esp Sus scrofa (domestic pig), typically having a long head with a movable snout, a thick bristle-covered skin, and, in wild species, long curved tusks
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pig
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig
A pig is not a bird. It does not have feathers or wings and can not fly.
20 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsPlease, distractions won't help your cause. Actually your cause is hopeless.
pig
n
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) any artiodactyl mammal of the African and Eurasian family Suidae, esp Sus scrofa (domestic pig), typically having a long head with a movable snout, a thick bristle-covered skin, and, in wild species, long curved tusks
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pig
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig
A pig is not a bird. It does not have feathers or wings and can not fly.
21 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseI am talking about this video in 2 parts.
Video? What video, a couple of wiki photo's? Of pigs? Is that supposed to be your idea of humor?
Frog to a Prince 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=dEyJ9g-Op4A
Frog to a Prince 2/2
&feature=endscreen&NR=1
If you insist that a bird is a dinosaur then you can't say Noah didn't take any dinosaurs on the ark.
21 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsyou still haven't discussed what alleged problems you believe exist with darwin's theory of evolution that have not been answered by modern evolutionary theory.
I am talking about this video in 2 parts.
Frog to a Prince 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=dEyJ9g-Op4A
Frog to a Prince 2/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TJOx0U6nHQ&feature=endscreen&NR=1
If you insist that a bird is a dinosaur then you can't say Noah didn't take any dinosaurs on the ark.
you haven't discussed any problems at all.
21 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritHow can We discuss the problems if you will not look at the videos I present to explain the the problems that come from scientist with more knowledge on it than me. If you would watch them then you could explain why you disagree with the scientists and then we could begin a discussion. Until then, I do not see what we have to discuss.
you still haven't discussed what alleged problems you believe exist with darwin's theory of evolution that have not been answered by modern evolutionary theory.
you haven't discussed any problems at all.
Frog to a Prince 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=dEyJ9g-Op4A
Frog to a Prince 2/2
&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Evolution Theory Proven False by Scientific Observation Part 1 of 3
Evolution Theory Proven False by Scientific Observation Part 2 of 3
&feature=relmfu
Evolution Theory Proven False by Scientific Observation Part 3 of 3
&feature=relmfu
But He answered and said to them, “I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out.”
(Luke 19:40 NKJV)
21 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsOk, I looked at your source, you look at mine now:
How can We discuss the problems if you will not look at the videos I present to explain the the problems that come from scientist with more knowledge on it than me. If you would watch them then you could explain why you disagree with the scientists and then we could begin a discussion. Until then, I do not see what we have to discuss.
Frog to a Prince 1 ...[text shortened]... you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out.”
(Luke 19:40 NKJV)
&feature=endscreen&NR=1