It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dinosaur with preserved tail feathers and skin tightens linkages between dinosaurs and birds

page: 2
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I just wish we'd get a big budget movie like Jurassic Park with feathered dinos, so sick of them being portrayed wrong when we've known better for years.




posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: aorAki

Anyway, there is plenty of evidence for feathered dinosaurs:


I'm not a dino-denier, nor am I feathered-dino-denier. In fact, I'd say a feathered dinosaur throws a pretty significant monkey wrench into the whole "unguided" aspect of evolutionary theory.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
can you imagine the profits Colonel Sanders could have made. Yum Dinosaurs taste like chicken! Im making Thai style Chicken coconut soup right now. Oh by the way Sanders was a personal friend of my dad. My dad will be 89 next month. When he had supper with Sanders, they didnt eat chicken. I asked.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75


I had to give you a star for your 'dickish' reply. After all, what is a cock other than another name for a rooster!



Anyway, I'd like you to expand on your "monkey wrench" comment, if you would be so kind?



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

You're arguing with a creationist. Don't expect an informed and intelligent discourse on the topic of dinosaurs and evolution.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Don't worry, the people looking will he able to tell the difference. Well unless we let the deniers teach our kids.


What do you mean by an unguided aspect of the theory?
edit on thWed, 04 Nov 2015 16:44:55 -0600America/Chicago1120155580 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: darkbake

You're arguing with a creationist. Don't expect an informed and intelligent discourse on the topic of dinosaurs and evolution.


So a blanket statement that if one believes in the bible then they could not possibly know any other subject.

Billions disagree with you.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Bone75

Don't worry, the people looking will he able to tell the difference. Well unless we let the deniers teach our kids.


What do you mean by an unguided aspect of the theory?


Oh and there you go.

People that do not buy this theory should not be able to teach.

So much blind hate for alternative theorist these days.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate

I remember a Simpson episode



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

I've seen you deny the science of evolution countless times, even after other posters have patiently explained the flaws in your reasoning. You are ideologically opposed to evolution for religious reasons. Your position is not born out of facts and reason but a compulsion to take your religious scripture literally. As such, it's a waste of time discussing the topic with you.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

And why would that be, exactly?



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Well overall I do believe that too many jumps in reasoning have been made.

Yes overall evolution if false.

That does not negate my understanding of the lies.

At every point of reference the ones discovering such always had a goal in mind. An overall picture of what they want the history to be like. While making decisions based on discoveries solely on the big picture predetermined by another theory.

Care to provide example of what you refer?



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: aorAki

That is a whole lot of conjecture.

There are of coarse (sic) other explanations that do not take as much conjecture.



I suggest you look up the word 'conjecture' as it seems you are not applying it correctly.

There is plenty of proof, despite what your cretinist creationist sources are telling you.

Could you perhaps provide some of these other 'explanations'?



originally posted by: deadeyedick

People that do not buy this theory should not be able to teach.

So much blind hate for alternative theorist these days.


It's not that they should not be able to teach. Rather, they should not be able to teach creationism in a science class, plain and simple.

It's not 'blind hate', it's common sense.

There is plenty of peer-reviewed evidence for feathered dinosaurs.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
The "Dinosaur" = bird connection goes back to the early 1980s.
Studies of dino bones showed they are warm blooded creatures,not cold blooded.

The major problem is to try to get the public OUT of the mindset that dinosaurs are Reptiles.

They are NOT reptiles.

Though there were reptiles around at the same time ...of course.

Im sure the portrayal of large Dinosaurs we have been fed, of being slow, bland colours of brown and grey etc, are totally wrong.
They would have been Very fast creatures, with blended colours (green, brown, black, white etc), probably with the ability to morph colours to the environment. the males probably had colourful decorations to attract females, and they probably didnt just growl, but had distinct whistles, clicks, screeches and everything else the current animals do.

We should just count the lucky stars that whatever calamity befell these poor creatures, happened as it did, or humans and most mammals would'nt be where we are today, to try and piece together their story. We would have been on the menu eons ago.
.

And bipedal Saurans would be finding our ancestors skeletons in the stone now.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

No one has said that big birds never existed.

The problem is when you try to link all them together in an order that tries to prove the theory that evolving happened over long periods of time to the point they just decided to change species.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Yes, that is my opinion.
You can teach it in your private and sunday schools all you want but has no business in our tax funded schools.

Not until the evidence that is abundant can be refuted and then published.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: deadeyedick

Yes, that is my opinion.
You can teach it in your private and sunday schools all you want but has no business in our tax funded schools.

Not until the evidence that is abundant can be refuted and then published.


ok glad you changed your tune.

It would have been pretty shallow to say that creationist can not be teachers.

As far as what is taught it is just a matter that is being debated even though you try to close the debate.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
This reminds me of another avian "dinosaur"....

We need new leadership at the Smithsonian.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick



ok glad you changed your tune.

I didn't change anything, you made an assumption.
What I would also hope is that the creationist would put their theory to the same set of standards they put evolution to.
But I wouldn't hold my breath on that.



As far as what is taught it is just a matter that is being debated even though you try to close the debate.

It is like debating if the earth revolves around the sun or if the earth is flat.
Mountains of evidence on one side and nothing but faith and religion on the other.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: trifecta

What exactly does the Smithsonian have to do with University of Alberta, in Canada, where the specimen was found? That's who ran this study. The Smithsonian had nothing to do with it. Was finding the link and reading the article that difficult or do you prefer to just express your umbrage towards science based purely on ignorance all the time?


edit on 4-11-2015 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join