Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Valentine Pontifex · 09-09-2003, 08:00 PM

The following article has been discussed in the t.o. newsgroup for a few days now.

http://bhcsa.org/DinoStory.asp

Now lets see if this group can find all the errors mentioned there. I am not sure I count that high. ;-)

RufusAtticus · 09-09-2003, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Buried in the same strata with Ezekiel were evidences of animals which, by evolutionary standards, should not be there, including garfish and turtles.

Look at him ejumatate those kids!

Mageth · 09-09-2003, 10:53 PM

Preachin' to the choir here:

You can go to this page and buy a 50-million-year old gar fossil, if it's not already sold and you have some serious bucks.

Or you can go here to view a 120-million-year old gar fossil.

And IIRC turtles have been around 200 million years or so.

So are they just stupid, are they lying, or a bit of both?

"We are dealing with some of the best and the brightest that the home school movement and the community of creation scientists has produced."

In other words, uneducated amateurs with a creationist agenda.

Further, I'm no expert, so this is speculation on my part, but I looked up a couple of images of Edmontosaurus skin impressions, and they look strikingly different than what's posted on that page and claimed as preserved Edmontosaurus skin (which I seriously doubt - if anything, it's a skin imprint). (See here and here). To me, the image shown on the creationist page looks strikingly like gar scales.

N.Wells · 09-10-2003, 07:37 AM

Wow, is that site ever full of nonsense. Calling ornithopods pre-birds is quite a distortion, as hadrosaurs are Cretaceous, the origin of birds happened in the Jurassic, and the split between theropods (the line to birds) and the other dinosaurs was Triassic. (Perhaps the creationists are misunderstanding "duck-billed" and "bird-hipped" to imply bird ancestry.)

As Mageth pointed out, Edmontosaurus skin was already known not to have feathers. So far, all dinosaurs with feathers and feather-like or pre-feather features are theropods, the ancestors of birds. If the evolution of feathers happened within the theropods, then other dinosaurs would not have had them. The site said that some evolutionists "have recently speculated that this was a partially feathered type of dinosaur which eventually evolved into modern birds". Does that claim come from anywhere other than a creationist misunderstanding?

Page 144 in David Lambert, The Ultimate Dinsoaur Book, shows a nice picture of Edmontosaurus skin. It too is not identical to what the creationists show, but skin might vary across the body, or due to different degrees of decomposition prior to preservation, and so on.

09-09-2003, 08:00 PM	#1
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	Duck-Billed Dinos are Proto-Birds (Yeah right!) The following article has been discussed in the t.o. newsgroup for a few days now. http://bhcsa.org/DinoStory.asp Now lets see if this group can find all the errors mentioned there. I am not sure I count that high. ;-)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-09-2003, 10:53 PM	#3
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Preachin' to the choir here: You can go to this page and buy a 50-million-year old gar fossil, if it's not already sold and you have some serious bucks. Or you can go here to view a 120-million-year old gar fossil. And IIRC turtles have been around 200 million years or so. So are they just stupid, are they lying, or a bit of both? "We are dealing with some of the best and the brightest that the home school movement and the community of creation scientists has produced." In other words, uneducated amateurs with a creationist agenda. Further, I'm no expert, so this is speculation on my part, but I looked up a couple of images of Edmontosaurus skin impressions, and they look strikingly different than what's posted on that page and claimed as preserved Edmontosaurus skin (which I seriously doubt - if anything, it's a skin imprint). (See here and here). To me, the image shown on the creationist page looks strikingly like gar scales.

09-10-2003, 07:37 AM	#4
N.Wells Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Kent, Ohio Posts: 782	Wow, is that site ever full of nonsense. Calling ornithopods pre-birds is quite a distortion, as hadrosaurs are Cretaceous, the origin of birds happened in the Jurassic, and the split between theropods (the line to birds) and the other dinosaurs was Triassic. (Perhaps the creationists are misunderstanding "duck-billed" and "bird-hipped" to imply bird ancestry.) As Mageth pointed out, Edmontosaurus skin was already known not to have feathers. So far, all dinosaurs with feathers and feather-like or pre-feather features are theropods, the ancestors of birds. If the evolution of feathers happened within the theropods, then other dinosaurs would not have had them. The site said that some evolutionists "have recently speculated that this was a partially feathered type of dinosaur which eventually evolved into modern birds". Does that claim come from anywhere other than a creationist misunderstanding? Page 144 in David Lambert, The Ultimate Dinsoaur Book, shows a nice picture of Edmontosaurus skin. It too is not identical to what the creationists show, but skin might vary across the body, or due to different degrees of decomposition prior to preservation, and so on.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.