Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Naveed

Dinosaurs and birds, theories and evidence

24 posts in this topic

Due to the topic on the four-winged dinosaur in main news section, and everyone talking about it, I figured I'd start this up for a longer convo on the subject.

I'd like to start by providing some links to info on bird-like dinosaurs:

Coelurosauria line of therapods

Sinornithosaurus, a raptor like theropod found with feathery integument.

Deinonychosauria, family tree that includes species like Utahraptor, and Velociraptor.

Avialae family tree, includes Archeaopteryx.

ornithurae, modern day bird like species, but retaining teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not like there was anything to debate in the first place:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yup laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol...well the reason for that was to avoid getting into big fights about evolution and creation. Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there were bird like dinosaurs at one point . big deal .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the Arizona devil is a survivor of this exotic group...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and el chupacabra as well....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we'd agreed that el Chupa was "the beast that is and is not" tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My son and I agree, that by the photos we've seen of El Chupa Cabra, that El Chupa is "Zaboomafoo"! w00t.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there were bird like dinosaurs at one point . big deal .

well one could say that its evidence of macro-evolution, which is quite a big deal, especially when allot of creationist/intelligent design proponents keep saying there is no evidence of macro-evolution, no transitionals so they say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creationist will never find any transitional fossil, on the other hand, evolutionist will find that all fossils are transitional. We have extensive fossil record of the horse line, from prehistoric Eohippus to modern Equus. Evolutionists say that it is an evidence of macroevolution, but creationists argue that Eohippus and Eqqus are "the same kind of animal." Eohippus looks more like a cat rather than a horse.

About the bird, I agree that it is el chupacabra. whistling2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats because creationists look for a species change, i.e. dinosaur straight to a bird, or a ape straight to a human. Thats what they believe macro-evolution is and thats why they never find "transitional forms". Yet transitional forms appear all the time in the fossil record as such things as dinosaurs with feathers, and the horse example you stated penguin.

Here are some questions I asked the people at Trueauthority.com:

Naveed (me grin2.gif ):

Why does your site appear to be very biased when you claim not to be in

your

research?  Have you looked at some of the recent finds from China

concerning

species of dinosaur such as Sinosauropteryx, or Sinornithosaurus, which

in

my opinion give great support to the "Birds evolved from dinosaurs"

debate?

The reply I received after waiting weeks for it:

Naveed,

Thank you for your interest in our website.  Forgive us in making our

reply

so delayed.  We make no secret of our positions and worldviews.  I

believe

what you are referring to is a quote from the ABOUT section of our

site:

"In such light, the goal of TrueAuthority.com is this:  For each and

every

visitor here to read articles of logic, consistency, and balance,

promoting

neither false evidence for creation nor false evidence for evolution."

How are we presenting false evidence?  As I mentioned we do not hide

how we

interpret evidence.

About the 'finds' in China... I personally have not heard of these, but

I

would ask you, what is your opinion?  How to they support

macro-evolution?

Don't just regurgitate what some science journal publishes, tell me why

you

are convinced.

Regards,

TrueAuthority.com

Please note I have removed the name of the person who replied to me just so I won't possibly make them mad.

Seems to me he gave me the run around a bit and then didn't even bother to look up the dinosaurs I mentioned. Yet there is an article about how dinosaurs didn't evolve into birds on that site which doesn't even consider any type of modern evidence. Basically, they ignore evidence that is against them instead of trying to make it support their theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have said this before......you will never find a fossil in a transitional form in the way creationists said will prove evolution: like a fish with legs.

There will NEVER be a fish with legs because by the time a fish developed legs, the rest of its body will have also changed accordingly. By then it is no longer a fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually find it interesting the bird was discovered in china ... perhaps their are more creatures in its line and they could have been around while the ancient chinese were still around ? Dates may be a problem , but if you look at chinese culture it is actually very possible that this could explain why dragons are often seen in chinese art / religious beliefs .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you will never find a fossil in a transitional form in the way creationists said will prove evolution: like a fish with legs

True absolutely true, but for interest here are some "fish" with legs (they aren't really fish, but still):

http://www.caudata.org/axolotl/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are interesting animals.. thanks for sharing original.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have said before, i think it is the segisaurs that became birds. i thought this up myself, i did not follow some body elses theory, if any one else agrees.

so, naveed, what are your ideas? some body as learned about evolution as you couldnt go without a theory. do you agree with the typical ideas (that would be raptors)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think that most likely it wasn't raptors and was an earlier species of therapod (that would be both and ancestor of archeaopteryx and raptors), since archeaopteryx appeared in the jurassic. I'm just not sure which one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually find it interesting the bird was discovered in china ... perhaps their are more creatures in its line and they could have been around while the ancient chinese were still around ? Dates may be a problem , but if you look at chinese culture it is actually very possible that this could explain why dragons are often seen in chinese art / religious beliefs .

I doubt anything survived that long, but most people think dragon stories arose from peolple finding dinosaur bones and assuming they must be giant monsters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also note that the gobi desert in China has been a large source for dinosaur bones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its a pretty big area tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.