I agree that it’s true in some circumstances and it might be true here, but it’s not a given. I think it’s worth pointing out the source for the benefit of at least some of the folks who read this stuff. Would you agree that AiG is not a reliable source of information?
As you already know, that’s not all I did, so why harp on it?
I don’t agree there is a reptile group. Just KINDS that happen to have some like traits in a limited options in a biology blueprint. There are no reptiles or mammals. totally unrelated creatures being grouped together.
BIRDS is a special problem. there were several kinds on the ark.
Anyways we all know what the bird is. its that creature whose body is formed to fly in the way it does. Ground birds are only these who lose that ability.
When they why “so called theropod dinos” who are very birdlike, wishbone and feathers, then it demands they should be seen as birds. Not reptiles.
As people get smarter, with better tools, the old reptile error will pass away. NOT YET. They just say AHA birds are reptiles. Oh brother.
At this point, I think that most (if not all) of the commentators on this forum are well aware of your opinions concerning AiG and other YEC sources. Many of the readers here agree with your stance, so your “pointing out” of the source doesn’t really benefit them (as they should, theoretically, be capable of noticing a source they find objectionable single-handedly). If the individuals you wish to benefit are those who agree with AiG etc., chances are that a more direct evaluation of an article’s argument without worrying (too much) about the source would probably resonate with them far, far more.
I prefer to evaluate the accuracy of a source’s specific claims on an individual basis rather than passing an overarching judgment on all the claims of the source.
In the future, we might want to discuss specific articles and arguments from YEC websites on this forum. When (or if) we do this, I would like to cut to the chase (that is, examine the argument and/or evidence) instead of repeating the discussion we just had here. For clarification, my response that you are referring to can be interpreted as a response to the prior 2 comments, not just to your own.
You evade the question and manage to do some virtue signaling in the process.
Answering your question with an overarching yes or no would have been a violation of the principle I outlined. When you have a specific article or argument from AiG that you would like to share, I would be happy to discuss it with you.
So you believe that T. Rex took to the skies at some point in the last 6-10 thousand years?
We were talking about a specific article already, weren’t we? The one that reported on Quick & Ruben’s little paper, though it doesn’t reference the actual paper or even its title. That would be Quick, D. E. & Ruben, J. A. 2009. Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: implications from extant archosaurs. Journal of Morphology 270:1232-1246. Given that reference, you can easily find critiques online. Ruben has made a career of finding reasons why birds can’t be dinosaurs, all sorts of reasons.
As far as I’ve seen, from roughly post #29 until now, there really hasn’t been any mention of the article. At any rate, thanks for sharing this information:
That makes as much sense as saying mammals are bats. Birds are branch of the dino tree that evolved flight in the same way that bats are a branch of the mammal tree that evolved flight.