New Feathered Dinosaur Discovered

That thing has arms , legs AND wings? sry im not buying it. Maybe it was a congenital deformity.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by VitalOverdose]

Yes... this is something solely complicit of evolutionist scientist, and never Creationist scientists.


Nice fine Silo13.




No, it had arms with feathers. Not arms and wings.

reply to post by VitalOverdose

---

There ya go

peace

Could be 1 deformed bird or 2 birds and 1 got eaten.

Theres no other mammal in the world with 3 sets of limbs so i doubt very much if this is what it looks like. Could even be a fake.

Mammal? I didn't think birds where mammals, but eh I've been wrong before.

lol..you could be right. Birds and mammals then. Not to sure about reptiles though but i cant think of any off hand.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by VitalOverdose]

reply to post by VitalOverdose

---

I'm not sure what you're counting there...



I see two arms, and two legs.

Not six limbs, just four, which is a normal number.

reply to post by RuneSpider

---

Your probably right but this is the artists sketch of what the scientists are trying to claim this creature looked like.



[edit on 27-9-2009 by VitalOverdose]

reply to post by VitalOverdose

---

The feathers are coming off the arms, does sort of look like multiple limbs.
I think it looks like a gi, to me.



[edit on 27-9-2009 by RuneSpider]

reply to post by RuneSpider

---

Ahh... i see what you mean now. Yes i am wrong that is only 4 limbs. I didnt see the thing was doing some weird stepping motion. I think the concept artist got a bit carried away.

Have a star for correctly pointing that out

[edit on 27-9-2009 by VitalOverdose]

reply to post by VitalOverdose

---

Sorry, initially I was sort of rude. I edited my post but got a call before I fixed it.

I wouldn't know, evolutionist's discriminate against Christians and claim it is an oxymoron to be a creationist scientist. I wish they would make up their mind. I DO know Haekel wasn't a creationist, and that the most famous faux fossils passed off as transitional species between man and a "common ancestor" ( they never give the name of it) were submitted as such by evolutionist's. These guys are SO good, So professional and so full of themselves and there superior logic, they were able to construct an entire skeleton broad and thick brow of its skull, the mandible protrududing forward. It was quite the leap of faith or speculation.

It sure as hell wasn't science though. Not when they can do this around the tooth of an extinct PIG. I could literally name hundreds of them. In fact one british museum was known to have over 400 fake fossils being displayed before they finally decided it was messing up science misleading people like that. Gee YA THINK!

What is so ironic is that they all treated skeptics with as much arrogance as I see being displayed here. and invariably they get proven wrong and shrug it off saying, well see science was correcting itself.

Correcting itself? It was an EXTINCT PIG!

Correcting itself? It took 45 years to get them to finally admit piltdown was a prank.

You ever read the emails that were sent among the scientists at the smithsonian and the NAS during hearings to investigate this area of the sciences by the United States Senate?

You couldn't find a better example of discrimination, conspiracy to commit fraud and immaturity among so called professional adult scientist's if they were in 7th grade seeking to be Darwins answer to the KKK.

They always look like that, but check out the fossil. If this thing had feathers, then that tells me it was a bird. They will argue a serated edge on a beak are actually "Fangs" like canines gums and all that. Which would require what? Saliva Glands, which would mean more weight and heavier skull, and a mucus membrane including a sinus cavity which then requires the necessary cilia hairs in the nose and throat to move the mucus which requires the action of a respiratory system that inhales and exhales which is too inefficient to sustain the oxygen levels a bird would has. Their are so many problems with this idea baffles the mind how something like this could have been a reptile, do they know what reptile it was or used to be or what its common ancestor was?

reply to post by Stylez

---

Here's a list of some evolution/creationist hoaxes:
www.epicidiot.com...

I can assure you, since I visit the Ancient Civ. forum pretty often, that there are several more.

Everything's a proccess, it takes a while for Creationists to finally admit it when hoaxes they believed were true are proven false, in fact, many are still brought up and rediscussed here pretty often.

See this is the kind of crap they pull when they KNOW for a fact they don't have a CLUE, NOT a single clue how much older the one bird is over the other. Yet they put it like this as if it is true. They have NO IDEA, NONE. and they know it!

I don't care what creationists do, you all say that is a religion not a science, so if that is the case, then don't compare them judging them the same either. When cretionism is taught as a science, allowed to submit papers to the NAS for peer review, THEN you can criticize them in a tit for tat with those that allegedly ARE scientist's.

You see, I HOLD scientists to their words, and they aren't about to get away with criticizing creationism as a science when it is opportunistic as a means to disparage them in a comparison. I don't have a problem with creationism not being taught in school. I have a problem with LOUSY inaccurate, fraudulent evolution science being taught things thatr are so obsolete or so fake phony the mountain of evidence is looking like nothing but a pile of piltdown pranks and students are getting punked by it everyday.

That is a pretty good stite I saved it to my favorites thanks



[edit on 27-9-2009 by Stylez]

That wasn't nice. You really should not be so easily threatened or upset about your beliefs being challenged.

Stylez is one of the finest researchers and proponents for creation science on ATS, and he deserves much more respect than you give him.

In the opening post the OP quotes and article that says dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Since this is a conspiracy site, ans Stylez and myself believe evolution is a conspiracy, I think Stylez is completely on topic by exposing the entire field of nonsense for what it is.

I have a show for you to enjoy. Have a pen handy so you can right down the names of the scientists and their respective fields that are referred to in the videos. They are Scientists that believe in Creation.
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by John Matrix

---

Well, Thanks for the kind words John Matrix, I am used to it however and it is one of the most predictable tactics used by supporters of the myth of evolution. (a Darwinist has just been violated).

I got a u2u explaining to me how the age of fossils are calculated because of my post stating they have no idea about such a difference in the two birds first appearing, or to suggest how much earlier the one existed before the other. He didn't want to embarrass me in a public setting so he sent me some info about carbon dating etc.

I on the other hand, I will not mention his name as to not embarrass him but I must make it public my reason for saying I know I am right because

www.independent.co.uk...

That bird was a fake to begin with and they have admitted it.


So why then make comments like that one, suggesting it existed millions of years later when the fact is,

It NEVER existed at all







[edit on 27-9-2009 by Stylez]

Why is it, that the picture of the fossil pile shows a snout, and the drawing of the creature shows a beak?

...

Did it have a snout or a beak?

...

Anything regarding "its" diet?

Surely there must be some fragmentation evidence conserning its edibles it ate...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Also...

I thought that dinosaurs died out?
Or did a comet hit, and caused them to go exstinct?
Or did they morph into "birds?"
Or, or, or...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Browsing some of the aformentioned "links" lol,...

www.independent.co.uk...



So...anyone who tries to "undermine" any evidence of "Darwinism" are tagged as "religious fundamentalists" ??




Those same "Religious fanatics" proved P.D. man was a FRAUD.




lol, good grief grow up!









[edit on 4-10-2009 by Solofront]