Results 1 to 15 of 277
Thread: Dino Bird Link Confirmed
April 29th, 2008 #1
Hide this ad by registering as a memberApril 29th, 2008 #2
Interesting? Very. Surprising, at this point? Not at all. Although I'm dying to hear Larry Martin or Alan Feduccia's spin on this.
April 29th, 2008 #3
April 29th, 2008 #4
yeah, i just wish the scientists would make up their mind. i'v been hearing about the dino/bird link forever. so i'm glad they are finally deciding to stick to a theory.The tiger lies low, not from fear, but for aim.
April 29th, 2008 #5
April 29th, 2008 #6
yeah, i know. it can be annoying sometimes. math is straightfoward, but science isn't always so straight forward. sigh.The tiger lies low, not from fear, but for aim.
April 29th, 2008 #7
The fact that the study of science is an iterative process, corrective, and sometimes wrong is one of the beauties of it. It allows progress. I'm currently pretty glad they didn't just stick to the aether.
Also, a small pet peeve in science discussions; the way you used 'theory' is not they way the word 'theory' is used in science.
Your 'theory' mean hypothesis, while in science the word 'theory' is more seen as as close to fact as science is able to get. Such as the theory of gravity. Or... the theory of evolution.
April 29th, 2008 #8
Evolution doesn't really qualify as a theory in my book though, and never has. It is a hypothesis in the midst of testing (as far in as that can be done... not very much at all really) and is constantly being reiterated, following the scientific method.
Regarding this specific dino-bird link. All species of life share an astounding amount of DNA and strands of protein. To say that this is confirmation of any link that one species eventually formed modern day birds is absurd. Add that to the fact that National Geographic is guilty of perpetrating almost all of the mainstream dinosaur-to-bird-link hoaxes really causes me to doubt any such "provable and testable" connection. Also the fact that the artists employed by National Geographic have been found to have created several "jackalopian" reconstructions as artistic renditions of skeletons that aren't even 1/10 complete and all they were given was pictures and casts of those skeletal remains and the line that "we need you to come up with what this creature looked like as a 'link' (there's the line there) between such and such a species based off this skeleton you see here." Sounds alot like the creature construction process often used at this very site.
Yes, I am a creationist, and I realize there are many problems with current creation outlooks. However, there are just as many, if not more, problems with current evolution outlooks. It's just that creation has one very big thing that people don't like and don't care for and that's God. And no matter what happens regarding "proofs" or "evidences" either way people are going to believe what they believe based on their life experiences.
All creationism is to me, is a hypothesis that IF God really did cause these miraculous events to happen then this would be the outcome of biological history. In my outlook, Creationism says: nobody has the answers, but it is possible that this may have occured and there is room for it in logical thinking so let's use the scientific method (even though "God" is not testable, the rest is) to uncover the truth.
What I think is most interesting is that soft proteins were found at all in a fossil that is puportedly ~65 million years old, and the fact that soft proteins are being found more and more so in fossils and that evolutionists constantly claimed (although now recanted) that soft tissues could never survive in fossils.
April 29th, 2008 #9
April 29th, 2008 #10
I don't believe in dinosaurs. i think they are our modern myth."I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
--- Frank Herbert, Dune - Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
Check out my Sketchbook! Critique and Criticism welcomed.
or my Artstation
Or my stream on Twitch! http://www.twitch.tv/wwsketch
April 29th, 2008 #11
How I know this is NG is always backpedaling and recanting these findings. Such as: this. But of course, not before they put a massive "MISSING LINK" headline on their magazines so they sell better.
And I am just as biased and subjective as almost all of my science teachers have been. So go figure. Sorry for having my own mind and looking for answers on my own.
April 29th, 2008 #12Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The truth is that we will never know for sure about the past. Science is basically just guessing untill proven correct or wrong. The majore error in what science is today is our media. They report theory as a truth when it is not. Take global warming for example there is no evidence that CO2 is causing the earth to warm up its just a theory mind you by the same person that in the 70's said that CO2 was causing the earth to cool and that we should be in a frozen waiste land now.
Now is CO2 causing the earth to warm I don't know. But I can not buy it when the so called scientest and non scientest that get hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to say it is argue that the sun has no affect on the tempature of earth.
Oh and all you Al Gore worshippers can flame away at me all you want. Maybe you should not listen to a politician for you scientific theories and count them as facts. Try researching it your self and that meens both sides of the story and not just one. Then come to your conclusion.
As for the dinosaurs go I can say this. They where big amazing and no longer here. Chickens or not I'm glad I dont have to hide from a TRex on my way to work everyday."The only thing we have to do is die. Everything else is a choice."
April 29th, 2008 #13
Just because there's evolution does not mean there is no God.
Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, developed the Big Bang Theory and Charles Darwin was a devote religious follower....so what's all this black and white bullshit thinking anyway?
Hey, they found dinosaur bones. They use to exist...deal with it. The Earth is older then 10,000 years old.
Last edited by NoSeRider; April 30th, 2008 at 09:22 PM. Reason: Doh! It's Charles....
April 29th, 2008 #14Originally Posted by Various Persons
If you aren't familiar with Sirlin yet, then you're in luck because you're about to read an article he penned about a little something called "Inductive Reasoning" (Be sure to check out is other stuff too, he's a smart guy).
There are three types of thinking:
Deductive Reasoning (e.g. Math), which is where you take certain axioms and build logical conclusions from them.
Inductive Reasoning (e.g. Science), which is where you observe experiments and verifiable evidence to build logical conclusions.
Alice in Wonderland Thinking (e.g. what the Average Joe uses), which is when up can be down, red can be blue, and Jesus could ride Dinosaurs.
I'll allow you to sort out on your own which category your thinking fits into.
And, because I'm tired of seeing this, a quick note about theories.
A scientific theory isn't what Joe-Schmoe thinks of when he hears the word theory. What Joe-Schmoe is thinking of is a hypothesis.
A theory is the scientific equivalent of a fact or "Truth" (with a capital T). Why is it called a "theory" instead of a "fact" (or truth, or gospel, et cetera)? Because with inductive reasoning, nothing is above criticism and examination, nothing, not even previously proven facts. There's always the chance that new evidence can crop up to disprove what was once previously proven.
Terming facts as "theories" is a nod to the above.
One might note my explanation of scientific theory isn't all that different from Wassermelone's. I explained again because even though Wassermelone already did, it seemed to bear repeating.-My work can be found at my local directory thread.
April 29th, 2008 #15
My kevferrara sense is tingling."Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
SketchBook: Bird by Bird - Journey in Learning to AnimateBy frame weaver in forum SketchbooksReplies: 13Last Post: May 7th, 2012, 10:51 AM
By ranger in forum ART CRITIQUE CENTERReplies: 0Last Post: February 9th, 2009, 05:54 PM
By Mungus in forum Artist LoungeReplies: 14Last Post: June 17th, 2007, 02:25 AM
By dogfood in forum Artist LoungeReplies: 6Last Post: February 16th, 2006, 09:05 AM