T Nation

New Dinosaur Fossil with Feathers


#1

A newly described, profusely feathered dinosaur may give lift to scientistsâ?? understanding of bird and flight evolution, researchers report. The lithe creature, which stood about 28 centimeters tall at the hip, is the oldest known to have sported feathers and is estimated to be between 1 million and 11 million years older than Archaeopteryx, the first known bird.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/47800/title/Feather-covered_dinosaur_fossils_found


#2

But I thought God did it. After all one of the reasons that Evolution can’t be true is that there are no transitional fossils.


#3

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
But I thought God did it. After all one of the reasons that Evolution can’t be true is that there are no transitional fossils.[/quote]

OMG didn’t you read Push’s stuff !!!

NO ONE existed back then !!!111

Except Noah and his Ark that is !


#4

[quote]300andabove wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
But I thought God did it. After all one of the reasons that Evolution can’t be true is that there are no transitional fossils.

OMG didn’t you read Push’s stuff !!!

NO ONE existed back then !!!111

Except Noah and his Ark that is ![/quote]

You people obviously haven’t done “hundreds of hours” of research on the subject like our resident creationist has.

Actually, I have been doing some light reading on evolution since the CvE thread a few months back… this thread prompted me to take a look at that thread today and I’m really seeing how laughable the anti-evolution “arguments” are. I mean, even back then - as someone with no education on the matter - it really seemed weak to me, but now it is just hilarious.


#5

I dunnooooooo, root balls and satan putting fossils in the ground still makes more sense to me. Archaeopteryx is just as theory you must remember.


#6

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
I dunnooooooo, root balls and satan putting fossils in the ground still makes more sense to me. Archaeopteryx is just as theory you must remember.[/quote]

Yes, Archaeopteryx as an intermediate animal has clearly been debunked numerous times. Evert creationist website I have looked at says so.


#7

I love how the resident “scientists” think “Evolution” and “God” are mutually exclusive.


#8

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I love how the resident “scientists” think “Evolution” and “God” are mutually exclusive.[/quote]

Well, evolution and the Biblical-literalist conception of God clearly are mutually exclusive. Of course, evolution and some conception of a deity are not mutually exclusive, but then again most theists who engage in this sort of debate don’t give those conceptions any lip.

So, what was the point again?


#9

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
I love how the resident “scientists” think “Evolution” and “God” are mutually exclusive.

Well, evolution and the Biblical-literalist conception of God clearly are mutually exclusive. Of course, evolution and some conception of a deity are not mutually exclusive, but then again most theists who engage in this sort of debate don’t give those conceptions any lip.

So, what was the point again?[/quote]

The judeo-christian God is not mutually exclusive from evolution. the literal 7 day creation act maybe sure. I don’t see how evolution would affect God’s character qualities as the tradition explains them except that instance.


#10

There are a lot of metaphors in the Bible. I do not see how they are mutually exclusive.


#11

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
I love how the resident “scientists” think “Evolution” and “God” are mutually exclusive.

Well, evolution and the Biblical-literalist conception of God clearly are mutually exclusive. Of course, evolution and some conception of a deity are not mutually exclusive, but then again most theists who engage in this sort of debate don’t give those conceptions any lip.

So, what was the point again?

The judeo-christian God is not mutually exclusive from evolution. the literal 7 day creation act maybe sure. I don’t see how evolution would affect God’s character qualities as the tradition explains them except that instance.[/quote]

I said: Biblical-literalist conception of God, to be even more precise, Biblical-literalist conception of the judeo-christian God, as opposed to some more liberal non-literalist conception of the god.

Look, the point is that you cannot try to arbitrate the creationist/evolution debate by evoking a conception of the judeo-christian god which does not require literal creationism! The move is simply not open. Hence pointing the move out does nothing to further the debate.

Of course, you can try to convince the creationist that the essential and fundamental tenants of Christianity do not entail the sort of biblical literalism that includes literal creationism, but that’s a whole different debate.


#12

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
I love how the resident “scientists” think “Evolution” and “God” are mutually exclusive.

Well, evolution and the Biblical-literalist conception of God clearly are mutually exclusive. Of course, evolution and some conception of a deity are not mutually exclusive, but then again most theists who engage in this sort of debate don’t give those conceptions any lip.

So, what was the point again?

The judeo-christian God is not mutually exclusive from evolution. the literal 7 day creation act maybe sure. I don’t see how evolution would affect God’s character qualities as the tradition explains them except that instance.

I said: Biblical-literalist conception of God, to be even more precise, Biblical-literalist conception of the judeo-christian God, as opposed to some more liberal non-literalist conception of the god.

Look, the point is that you cannot try to arbitrate the creationist/evolution debate by evoking a conception of the judeo-christian god which does not require literal creationism! The move is simply not open. Hence pointing the move out does nothing to further the debate.

Of course, you can try to convince the creationist that the essential and fundamental tenants of Christianity do not entail the sort of biblical literalism that includes literal creationism, but that’s a whole different debate. [/quote]

Well said.


#13

[quote]ephrem wrote:
A newly described, profusely feathered dinosaur may give lift to scientistsâ?? understanding of bird and flight evolution, researchers report. The lithe creature, which stood about 28 centimeters tall at the hip, is the oldest known to have sported feathers and is estimated to be between 1 million and 11 million years older than Archaeopteryx, the first known bird.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/47800/title/Feather-covered_dinosaur_fossils_found [/quote]

What I really care about is whether or not we can burn the oil resulting from its decaying fossils.


#14

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
But I thought God did it. After all one of the reasons that Evolution can’t be true is that there are no transitional fossils.[/quote]

I’m sensing there was another thread about this and you are taking a friendly poke at it, but never the less, I’d like to say that all fossils are transitional fossils.


#15

[quote]on edge wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
But I thought God did it. After all one of the reasons that Evolution can’t be true is that there are no transitional fossils.

I’m sensing there was another thread about this and you are taking a friendly poke at it, but never the less, I’d like to say that all fossils are transitional fossils.[/quote]

Really? Have you ever seen a fossil of a crocoduck?

Doesn’t matter if you have, anyhow - I can still shift the goalposts. The crocoduck has feathers, so it is technically classified as a bird. Who cares that it has a distinct crocodile skull, or that it has teeth. It it still a bird, so, once again, there is nothing bridging that gap between crocs and ducks.

Oh, and if that doesn’t convince everyone that you are wrong, I will call you a liar and claim you made the crocoduck all by yourself.


#16

Just curious, but how would feathers on a non-flying dinosaur make it any more fit to survive than non-flying dinosaurs without feathers?


#17

[quote]borrek wrote:
Just curious, but how would feathers on a non-flying dinosaur make it any more fit to survive than non-flying dinosaurs without feathers?[/quote]

Insulation (both the animal and its eggs), communication (defensive/sexual), water repellency, camouflage… I’ve read buoyancy mentioned, as well, in addition to physical defense.


#18

[quote]borrek wrote:
Just curious, but how would feathers on a non-flying dinosaur make it any more fit to survive than non-flying dinosaurs without feathers?[/quote]

Dude seriously? Have you ever taken a biology class? Did you seriously just go to that place where the only advantage feathers give birds is it lets them fly?

V


#19

In the off chance you were really just asking because you didn’t know, dude, google. It is your friend.

V


#20

[quote]Vegita wrote:
borrek wrote:
Just curious, but how would feathers on a non-flying dinosaur make it any more fit to survive than non-flying dinosaurs without feathers?

Dude seriously? Have you ever taken a biology class? Did you seriously just go to that place where the only advantage feathers give birds is it lets them fly?

V[/quote]

This is how you choose to respond to respectfully worded questions? Really??

There’s nothing wrong with not knowing something and seeking answers from people more knowledgeable than yourself. He wasn’t trying to be a smartass about it, and he posed it nicely enough.