Pastor's Comment on Dinasours and Feathers

[GPS]

Here is a Pastor's comment. Can someone refute this please!

 

"Can't help but to quote former President Ronald Reagan during one of his presidential debates after watching this news clip and hearing the criticisms from 'some' scientists about 'Jurassic World ' - President Reagan's great comeback, "There you go again!"
Really ... to 'some' scientists, ALL dinosaurs would have had feathers? How come we have so few examples in the entire fossil record - wait a minute - ONE example - archeopteryx. Furthermore, check out this link about another great hoax dealing with alleged fossils supporting the feather myth - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Iz7GResDtQ

Yep, I've said enough as it doesn't take too much to dispel the incredible distortions, lies, and fabrications that somehow become
'fact' ... TOTALLY ENJOYED THE MOVIE!!!

To those scientists who seem to have the time to find fault with this movie, maybe you could better spend that time searching for evidence that actually supports your wild hypotheses - good luck - you'll need it!"

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

Could you perhaps summarise the points in the video for members who are unable to view it?

[swansont]

Sounds like a straw man. Who is claiming all dinosaurs would have had feathers? The evidence suggests that very early dinos had them, so it would have been a trait common to their descendants, but of course some species could have lost them. Also, there is more than one species with feathers that have been found, so that claim is an out-and-out falsehood.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2013/jun/10/dinosaurs-fossils

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140724-feathered-siberia-dinosaur-scales-science/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

[Phi for All]

Really ... to 'some' scientists, ALL dinosaurs would have had feathers? How come we have so few examples in the entire fossil record - wait a minute - ONE example - archeopteryx.

 

This is an example of a fairly common tactic in politics, religion (especially creationism). You state a lie with such conviction that people don't bother to check.

 

We've long known of several families of dinosaurs that had feathers, including archeopteryx.

[MonDie]

If I recall, the problem is that feathers are rarely fossilized, and leave no observable imprints on the bones. Don't take my word for it.

This looks pretty useful. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dinosaurs%20had%20feathers+site:news.nationalgeographic.com&t=canonical

Edited June 26, 2015 by MonDie

[GPS]

The Video Summary-

Name:Scientist Caught Faking Dinosaur-Bird Fossils

Scientist theorized that feathered dinosours existed in the past. In support of this belief, museums have added feathers to many common models. Opponents criticize this since no feathers have been found on any dinasour fossil. Then the video quotes a National Geographic guru.

"The idea of fethered dinosaurs on the theropod orgin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre (spell?) of zealous scientist acting in concert with certain editors of Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspiken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific evidence have been among the firts casualties in their program, which is now fast of grander scientific hoaxes of our age."

-Dr. Storrs Olson

November 1, 1999

 

To add to the conspiracy in the mid 1990's a series of fossils was found in China. According to scientist they had unique feathers to support bird evolution (love the science lingo here). Doctor Row, a palentologist that supports evolution had a unique chance to CAT-scan one of these fossils. In summary he questioned the authenticity and claimed their were layers of steel, pait, etc added to it. He claims a piece of its jaw had been substituted from another animal. Doctor Row, had a second chance to view another one of these fossils, Archaeorapter-the missing link that birds evolved from dinasours. It is noted to have feathers blended in with its body as Darwin predicted (not exact wording here). Archaeoraptor consisted of fossilized bones from 5 different animals.

 

Doctor Row reported his his dcoveries to National Geographic. Scientist at the National Geographic held a press conference and failed to disclose Archaeoraptor as a fraud. Three months later, it was published in their magazine where it claimed that it was a flying dinosour, "a missing link, the best evidence that birds evolved from dinosaours."

Edited June 26, 2015 by GPS

[MonDie]

^ Two decades ago, and per Wikipedia, it was National Geographic, the ones who made the hasty, unreviewed press release, who led the investigation exposing it as potentially being a composite fossil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor#cite_note-Dalton403-7

---

Apparently many have "dino fuzz" instead of feathers, but both share pigment organelles called "melanosomes".

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100127-dinosaur-feathers-colors-nature/

[swansont]

National Geographic is not a peer-reviewed journal. Whatever claims they made carried little weight. Proper scientific review showed that find to be false, but that does not falsify the existence of feathered dinosaurs in general. Other species have been discovered.

[GPS]

Show me the money! Is there any molecular evidence taken from mummified skin in peer reviewed journals linking dinasours to birds?

[swansont]

Why are we limited to "molecular evidence", whatever that's supposed to mean?

[Delta1212]

That's an arbitrarily specific piece of evidence. Like asking someone to prove their identity by providing the envelop from the first cable bill they ever received in their own name.

[GPS]

Let me clarify. Is there any cellualr process associated with feathers, protein associated with feathers, commonly believed DNA sequence associated with feathers, etc. that can be found in mummified tissue and which has or could be traced through the phylogenetic tree such as through the application of biomarkers that has been published in a peer reviewed journal?

 

"Why are we limited to "molecular evidence", whatever that's supposed to mean?"-Swansont

 

 

My thought behind "molecular evidence" or "cellualr process associated with feathers, protein associated with feathers, commonly believed DNA sequence associated with feathers, etc...traced through the phylogenetic tree..." is that it is the best way to argue against a creationist-?

Edited June 28, 2015 by GPS

[Phi for All]

Is there any cellualr process associated with feathers, protein associated with feathers, commonly believed DNA sequence associated with feathers, etc. that can be found in mummified tissue and which has or could be traced through the phylogenetic tree such as through the application of biomarkers that has been published in a peer reviewed journal?

 

What's wrong with the fossils that clearly show feather follicles and quill knobs? Or actual feathers? Mummification is pretty rare in the fossil world. Most fossils have... fossilized.

 

We have specimens which have tested positive for beta-keratin, the primary protein found in bird feathers. Is that molecular enough?

 

It seems like you're looking for "proof" rather than evidence. Are you trying to refute the claim or support it?

[GPS]

 

 

It seems like you're looking for "proof" rather than evidence. Are you trying to refute the claim or support it?

You may have helped to further clearify the arguement in my mind between evolutionist and creationist-that is if I interpreted it right. I didn't know the difference between proof and evidence until you pointed it out. I am here to learn. Am I interpreting it right to say that, "Creationist are looking for absolute proof when all we have is evidence? The evidence we have does point to the fact that brids evolved from dinosours but there is no absolute proof." Therefore, it is useless to argue with a creationist and I would do best by replying "no comment" if they asked me (in attempt to debate) about the evolution of dinosaurs to birds.

 

"No comment' is a splendid expression. I am using it again and again."

Winston Churchill

(For you wise guys out there-please don't use the phrase in reply to this post)

Note: I am attempting to refute the claim.

[iNow]

Science doesn't deal in proofs. Proofs happen in math, but in science all conclusions are provisional and subject to change based on new information and new evidence. Forgive the pun, but science evolves.

[GPS]

Science doesn't deal in proofs. Proofs happen in math, but in science all conclusions are provisional and subject to change based on new information and new evidence. Forgive the pun, but science evolves.

 

touche