Pump the brakes there, super chief.
3 Likes
Earlier tyrannosaurs did have feathers so their existence on Rexy is inferred. So itâs very possible Rex had them. They are found in poor feather preserving environments
I would be interested in seeing fossil evidence for this, of course (not saying it doesnât exist, just interested in learning more).
I see. 
Nobody knows, of course. But one idea is that the young ones were warmblooded and the adults were inertial homeotherms.
Tyrannosauroids were primitively feathered. Itâs unknown whether T. rex had feathers anywhere on its body at any time in its life, but its ancestors did. Google Dilong, for example.
What argument? You havenât made one, and the article just cites an old paper by Ruben, who is frankly a crank. The serious flaws in that paper have been pointed out many times, notably the omission of the most relevant taxa.
Anyway, the source has never had a valid point in its history, so prior experience should not be completely discounted as a guide.
I know the AIG article. Creationists I think in the future will argue theropod dinos are birds. They still, like everyone, are believing they are reptiles and then some special group of reptiles.
Its not between dinos and birds. But between therpod dinos and birds.
they have contended over whether some dinos were warm blooded or not. most agree some were.
REMEMBER the only reason to say they wewre not WAS because of a presumption they were reptiles. they had no evidence back in the 1800âs. the presumption led and intefed with the science investigation. As it does today.
I do say t rex was just av big bird however on its wiki article they guess it didnât have feathers. however i heard others say they did. howeverr vultures donât have feathers on thier necks so they can dig deep into carcass. They do think ancestors of t rex had feathers.
i say it had feathers because it was only and just a bird. Never a reptile.
Just incompetent 1800âs investigation.
remember its the birdness of these theropod dinos THAT ALONE makes them guess birds came from/are dinos. So they are saying birds are reptiles. Why donât they say it louder eh? Because it would look dumb I think!!
Another crank? Is he YEC! Seems like a Jewish name so probably not!!
yes wiki has good things on t rex. Except they misunderstand its just another flightless ground birds and flew on creation week. there are no dinosaurs or reptiles. these are false classification systems whose time has passed as smarter researchers, with better tools, discover how much like birds âtheropod dinosâ are. So thus they get excited and say BIRDS ARE REPTILES/DINOSAURS too. Whoops Think harder.
Question your presumptions.
anyways presumptions should not lead investigation in science.
it should be a clean investigation whee any option is possible in place of some presumption.
Creationists shouldnât have to be the ones to keep these dudes to the rules.
That is true. However, simply attacking the source (or going out of the way just to attack a source, like in this case) are still not profitable tactics for most instances. The quote below would have been a much more worthwhile response for people to read the first time around:
Anyway, would you agree with AiG when it says that Evolution and Christianity are incompatible?
That helps to narrow the focus a bit!
Now Iâm wondering how you define âbird.â What criteria does an organism have to meet before you would classify it as a bird? What criteria would an organism have to meet before you would classify it as a reptile?
1 Like
It may not be profitable, but is it reasonable? Suppose you told me that gravity depends on consciousness, because conscious beings fall only if they realize they have no support under them. And you cite a Road Runner cartoon for that claim. Is it invalid of me to note that cartoons are not a good source of evidence?
No.
1 Like
Iâm glad that we can we can come to something resembling agreement on that at least.
Putting an emoji next to an insulting snip of my point doesnât make it more ethical.
1 Like
@John_Harshman, I assure you that I did not in any way mean to come across as insulting.
@J.E.S, I assure you that it does come across that way. You ignored my actual point in order to agree with a snippet that you have to misinterpret.
1 Like
I do note that you shared a hypothetical in your post in addition to the statement I quoted, but I was unaware that your hypothetical somehow contradicted the quoted statement. If you donât agree with your statement that I quoted in my post, feel free to clarify what you mean and/or edit your comment appropriately. (And I will be more than happy to edit my claims accordingly).
Hypotheticals do not constitute opinions or agreement with your opinions. Thatâs the nature of hypotheticals. Itâs how the English language works. But my main complaint is that you snipped and didnât respond to the main point.
1 Like
Your statement which I quoted definitely appeared to agree with (or at least partially concede) my point (saying that it âmay not be profitableâ):
Itâs plain to see that your hypothetical doesnât contradict your statement which I quoted (and you have, thus far, failed to clarify or change that statement). At any rate, since your real objection appears to be that I didnât respond to your main point, I will take a look at your hypothetical:
My response: it is valid for you to note that cartoons are not a good source of evidence.
However, since AiG (and other Creationist sources) definitely appear to be in a totally different league than that occupied by fictional cartoons, such a response would not be valid against AiG as a source (and a much more reasonable and effective strategy for you to employ would be to simply engage the arguments they are presenting).
Thatâs true because fictional cartoons occasionally honestly represent physical reality. Itâs rare for YEC nonsense sites like AIG to have a single page about science without a misrepresentation, critical omission, or outright lie.
2 Likes
I disagree that AiG is in a different league than Road Runner cartoons. That would appear to be the central issue. I think they both have about the same relationship to reality. There really are coyotes; there probably are several Acme corporations. But most of it is fantasy, as with AiG.
2 Likes
Iâm sure you do. However, my central issue (which you apparently agreed to and/or conceded), is that simply attacking a source and/or going out of your way just to attack a certain source are not profitable tactics for these discussions. Even the flawed rhetorical comparison that you have attempted draw (however true it may seem to you) is a continuation of this tactic.
If you want to discuss specific articles from AiG, CMI, etc., and why you think they are wrong, that would be an interesting and worthwhile discussion. However, if all that you plan to contribute to a given discussion is the redundant and unprofitable tactic of belittling sources, why bother commenting in that discussion at all?