T-Rex is a Flightless Ground Bird?


(Robert Byers) #1

This YEC does think its very likely these theropod dinosaurs are just flightless ground birds. JUst birds in a spectrum of diversity. not reptiles or the other invented group called dinosaurs.
I understand the tonage of the t-rex is questioned. like birds theropods had hollow bones. So t-rex large bones are said by many to have been hollow. (wiki) I think its likely they kept their feathers. Hair/fur is usually, like with humans, to keep one dry. This being more important since getting wet loses so much heat. Yet why should all feathers leave to keep a large creature cool?
Anyways the important thing is push that T-rex was just a giant bird. So all the old and new movies/books/comics about t- encounters was really encounters with a giant duck. Not raor, roar but quack, quack.

No Feathers in the Best T-Rex Reconstruction
(S. Joshua Swamidass) #2

Why doesn’t it have a beak then?

(Robert Byers) #3

Aww. Did it have to be diverted. i thought it was on the point of the original post. I wasn’t trying to change any subject.
Many theropods did just have beaks and no teeth. Many birds in the days of those creatures did have teeth.
Its just a diversity of birds. Once again classification is what distorts investigation into nrelationships between biology entities.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #4

Yup. We get better engagement on your posts when they are separate.

(George) #5


Australian fossils and living specimens demomstrate that God created life via Evolution.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #6

Yes, your posts are put into there own special section on the 3rd floor of the Ark. So that they are eaten by the other dinosaurs during the flood year.

(Robert Byers) #7

Then why isn’t this comment a separate post??? just be humorous!

(John Harshman) #8

Just to be clear, Robert’s posts are on the “B” Ark, the one with the telephone sanitizers.


That’s like saying humans are flightless ground bats. Humans are mammals just like bats are. T-rex’s were theropod dinosaurs just like birds are.

(Robert Byers) #10

I don’t agree humans are mammals. i don’t accept there are mammals in a real world biology. its another invented classification that then is used to bring error into relationships.

Saying theropods are flightless ground birds has nothing in relation to us/bats.
Evolutionists say theropods are so , so, so, alike to birds, wishbones and feathers aplenty, that they use this to say birds are living dinosaurs. tHey are from dinosaurs including flight.
Actually its an error . these are not dino/reptiles but are just birds. In a spectrum of diversity.
one needs to know about flightless birds, the hugh sizes birds came in once, and how much theropods etc are like birds.
The idea of these dinos being reptiles is still distorting accurate investigation. It was faulty analysis of the 1800’s once again.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #11

@moderators I couldn’t resist this one.


(Retired Professor & Minister.) #12

As Patrick has already reminded us, humans are mammals because humans feed their young by means of mammary glands. Humans also are warm-blooded vertebrates and have skin which sprouts hair. Humans have the characteristics one would expect of mammals.

Words have meanings and English nouns are used as labels to help us communicate ideas about observed categories. Those categories exist whether or not someone chooses to accept them.

To my knowledge, the word mammal was first applied by Carl Linnaeus, a devout Christian, long before Darwin was born. So I just want to emphasize that the scientific classification Mammalia was not some sort of derivative of the Theory of Evolution.

So you don’t accept that there is a named category of animals which have mammary glands for feeding their young, are warm-blooded vertebrates, and have skin which produces hair? Do you object to Mr. Linnaeus applying a label to a category of animals which we all can observe and know to exist? Why deny reality? (Do you object to the use of nouns in general or just uncomfortable labels? :wink: ) What do you have against the classification of animals and the labels which make it easier for us to refer to them?

Of course it is. All classifications (and their labels) are “inventions”. They help us to make sense of what we observe.

What errors in relationships are brought about by the mammalia classification? Tell us about these relationships and how they are in error.


Mammal are as much a group of species as dinosaurs are. Even Linnaeus, who was a creationist, thought that mammals were a real group.

It’s the same exact thing. Theropods are a group of bipedal dinosaurs that includes birds and T. rex. Mammal is a group that includes humans and bats. It is the same exact relationship.

Yes, just as bats and humans are living mammals.

The spectrum of diversity within dinosaurs includes birds.

(Retired Professor & Minister.) #14

Robert, it is clear that both T_aquaticus and I are not following your reasoning as to why you think humans are not mammals.

Could you perhaps explain to us why you think creationist Carl Linnaeus was wrong when he created the mammalia category? Was he deceived? Or merely mistaken in some way?

[As to the “T-Rex is a flightless ground bird” thread title, it sounds like a playground taunt which came from contemporaneous mammals when ridiculing the beast.]

(Dan Eastwood) #15

There’s a Blur Spoiler for that. Look under “options” in the comment editor.

I don’t know why people make such a big deal about breasts. On average, everybody has one. :wink:

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #16

I was being civil, as my first inclination was to put up a picture from a topless strip club. :sunglasses:

(Dan Eastwood) #17

You selection was perfect!

I don’t see what the big deal about topless strip clubs is either. Nearly every strip club I have been to had a roof. :rofl:

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #18

Thank you. The child’s expression is prefect for a caption “Are you serious?”

(Robert Byers) #19

Carl was wrong. in those days they got everything wrong.
I’m denying there is any actual division in biology called mammals. nature does not recognize this invention.
We are not mammals. We have no connection to a section of biology because of like traits.
We are only KINDS as the bible says. having like traits is just because those traits, in a common blueprint, are a good idea. there are not many options.
likewise turtles are in no more relationship to crocodiles then they are to camels. no less.
Drawing connections between creatures based on traits is a silly idea.
Why not base groups on eyeballs, sexy lips, livers, number of legs??
From this false classification, for the last two centuries, they have drawn crazy concepts in biologys family tree.
classification ruined investigation. Still does.

(Robert Byers) #20

Errors were made in the past. i don’t see how these classification ideas from ancient days are persuasive. putting biology into groups based on traits rejects genesis/kinds, and rejects mechanisms that affect biology to common results.
Reptiles, mammals, dinosaurs, marsupials, creodonts, etc etc are invented, even silly, ideas about relationships.
Thats why they can’t get over the obvious barrier on theropod dinos. tHey are not glorious bird like reptiles from whence birds/flight came from.
they are just flightless ground birds of which there were many in the fossil record WHICH they say are just birds. I mean the TERROR BIRDS of North/ South america. The elephant bird.
Its not morphology but only classification, some timleine concepts, that stops t-rex from being a typical terror bird or modern ostrich.