Scientists have unearthed the remains of a large carnivorous dinosaur that breathed like a bird.
(Advertisement) The discovery adds to the link between birds and dinosaurs and helps to explain the evolution of birds' unique system of breathing.
It was pulled from 85-million-year-old rock along the banks of Rio Colorado in Argentina's Mendoza Province.
The two-legged predator was 33ft long (ten metres), weighed as much as an elephant and probably had feathers, the scientists said.
But its method of breathing makes this dinosaur stand out, said Paul Sereno of the University of Chicago.
Instead of lungs that expand and contract, Mr Sereno thinks this beast had air sacs that worked like a bellows, blowing air into the beast's stiff lungs, much like modern birds.
"This dinosaur, unlike any other, provides more direct evidence of the bellows involved in bird breathing," said Ricardo Martinez of the Universidad Nacional de San Juan, Argentina, who worked with Mr Sereno on the research.
The team have named the dinosaur Aerosteon riocoloradensis, meaning "air bones from the Rio Colorado," because its bones have pockets and a sponge-like texture in which air sacs from the lung invade the bone.
Just wondering why something which weighs as much as an elephant might want to fly? How did they know it had feathers?
My point is, that this, for me, typifies the bullsh1t which "scientists" make up about evolution. In twenty years time, this will become another of those "facts" which "everyone knows", and which "proves" evolution, but which, in reality, has no basis in truth.
Originally posted by Mr Woolf: Just wondering why something which weighs as much as an elephant might want to fly? How did they know it had feathers?
My point is, that this, for me, typifies the bullsh1t which "scientists" make up about evolution. In twenty years time, this will become another of those "facts" which "everyone knows", and which "proves" evolution, but which, in reality, has no basis in truth.
woolfy, just point out the bit for me where it says "something which weighs as much as an elephant might want to fly". In case you didn't notice, not all birds fly, & those that don't are usually large.
BTW, I thought your OP was a good example & have quoted it elswhere. Thanks!
Originally posted by Mr Woolf: Just wondering why something which weighs as much as an elephant might want to fly? How did they know it had feathers?
My point is, that this, for me, typifies the bullsh1t which "scientists" make up about evolution. In twenty years time, this will become another of those "facts" which "everyone knows", and which "proves" evolution, but which, in reality, has no basis in truth.
woolfy, just point out the bit for me where it says "something which weighs as much as an elephant might want to fly". In case you didn't notice, not all birds fly, & those that don't are usually large.
BTW, I thought your OP was a good example & have quoted it elswhere. Thanks!
Maybe I'm reading too much into this? I thought that the article was establishing a link between dinosaurs which weighed as much as an elephant and birds?
How do you think that they concluded that the dinosaur might have had feathers?
Because it breathed like a bird (Possibly?) and so therefore it probably was a bird, and therefore must have had feathers. Then, obviously, it it had feathers, it must have been a bird.
How many times have "scientists" used such self serving logic as this in arriving at their "conclusions"?
Originally posted by Mr Woolf: Just wondering why something which weighs as much as an elephant might want to fly? How did they know it had feathers?
My point is, that this, for me, typifies the bullsh1t which "scientists" make up about evolution. In twenty years time, this will become another of those "facts" which "everyone knows", and which "proves" evolution, but which, in reality, has no basis in truth.
If you'd bothered to find the actual article instaead of just reports on it you'd see that the reason the scientist think it is likely (they have never said they know) that this dinosaur had feathers is because "The fossil evidence for intrathoracic air sacs now closely overlaps that for feathers, which had evolved in coelurosaurian theropods most likely for heat retention" - i.e. dinosaurs from the time this one came from have been found with evidence for feathers, so it's likely that this one also had feathers too. Perhaps the reason you see this as "bullsh1t"! is because you don't understand it or don't feel the need to research things more fully before giving an opinion, unless you're deliberately trying to twist things by claiming scientists have said they "know" things when they've expressed nothing of the sort. They have said there's no direct evidence for feathers in this case, and without evidence they can't say for certain, just that it is likely based on other evidence. Science doesn't make definite claims without evidence - that seems to be the exclusive privilege of religion.
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." - Charles Bradlaugh.
Originally posted by Mr Woolf:I thought that the article was establishing a link between dinosaurs which weighed as much as an elephant and birds?
How do you think that they concluded that the dinosaur might have had feathers?
Why sholdn't there be a link? closely related animals don't necessarily have to be the same size. Take the Hyrax for example, about the size of a small dog. It's nearest living relative is the elephant. And as far as feathers is concerned, Asarualim has more than adequately answered that above.
Originally posted by Mr Woolf: Just wondering why something which weighs as much as an elephant might want to fly? How did they know it had feathers?
My point is, that this, for me, typifies the bullsh1t which "scientists" make up about evolution. In twenty years time, this will become another of those "facts" which "everyone knows", and which "proves" evolution, but which, in reality, has no basis in truth.
If you'd bothered to find the actual article instaead of just reports on it you'd see that the reason the scientist think it is likely (they have never said they know) that this dinosaur had feathers is because "The fossil evidence for intrathoracic air sacs now closely overlaps that for feathers, which had evolved in coelurosaurian theropods most likely for heat retention" - i.e. dinosaurs from the time this one came from have been found with evidence for feathers, so it's likely that this one also had feathers too. Perhaps the reason you see this as "bullsh1t"! is because you don't understand it or don't feel the need to research things more fully before giving an opinion, unless you're deliberately trying to twist things by claiming scientists have said they "know" things when they've expressed nothing of the sort. They have said there's no direct evidence for feathers in this case, and without evidence they can't say for certain, just that it is likely based on other evidence. Science doesn't make definite claims without evidence - that seems to be the exclusive privilege of religion.
Nonetheless, if you return to this forum in twenty years, there will be a host of atheists taking it as read that this donosaur did, indeed have feathers, and therefore, sparrows must have evolved from elephants or some such misguided and insubstantiated waffle. Unless our Lord chooses to return, in the meantime, that is. I think the world is just about fit to burn.
Originally posted by Mr Woolf:Nonetheless, if you return to this forum in twenty years, there will be a host of atheists taking it as read that this donosaur did, indeed have feathers,etc etc.
so now you know what 2000 years has done for christianity !! the original story is lost forever & has been replaced with "misguided and insubstantiated waffle".
Originally posted by Mr Woolf: Nonetheless, if you return to this forum in twenty years, there will be a host of atheists taking it as read that this donosaur did, indeed have feathers, and therefore, sparrows must have evolved from elephants or some such misguided and insubstantiated waffle.
Well then, now you will have the ammo to say to them "no, the scientists only thougt it likely".
You also seem to be labouring under the misaprehension that only atheists agree with evolution, whereas I think you'll find it's only those that who believe in a literal interpretation of genesis (or whatever their religious equivelant is) that fail to accept evolution as having sufficient evidence behind it to make it as good as fact.
quote:
Unless our Lord chooses to return, in the meantime, that is.
That's assuming he was here in the first place. Wouldn't it be ironic if he came back on a dinosaur though?
quote:
I think the world is just about fit to burn.
If I thought you actually meant it and weren't just on a wind up I'd feel quite distressed by that statement. It's indicitive of the problem with some christian organisations though - rather than have a desire to make the world a better place by practical application, they don't feel the need to bother beause they think christ on a bike is going to come riding back into town, or that the whole world is going to burn and they'll be lifted up to heaven in the rapture leaving the non-believers and wrong-believers to perish. It's all rather defeatist and makes me wonder what the point to their lives actually is if all they're doing is waiting for the end of the world, while doing just enough to bag a ticket to eternity.
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." - Charles Bradlaugh.
Originally posted by Mr Woolf: Nonetheless, if you return to this forum in twenty years, there will be a host of atheists taking it as read that this donosaur did, indeed have feathers, and therefore, sparrows must have evolved from elephants or some such misguided and insubstantiated waffle.
Well then, now you will have the ammo to say to them "no, the scientists only thougt it likely".
I hope that I will have forgotten about this conversation by then. Otherwise, my life will have been proven to have been quite sadly dissipated.
You also seem to be labouring under the misaprehension that only atheists agree with evolution, whereas I think you'll find it's only those that who believe in a literal interpretation of genesis (or whatever their religious equivelant is) that fail to accept evolution as having sufficient evidence behind it to make it as good as fact.
Valid point, well made. I should have used more of a catch all characterisation, like "Atheists, people who believe in other gods, those people who believe in the true God, but deny His power, people who believe in the true God, but have been cruelly tricked by Satan into believing in their own self righteousness, people who.......
quote:
Unless our Lord chooses to return, in the meantime, that is.
That's assuming he was here in the first place. Wouldn't it be ironic if he came back on a dinosaur though?
That would be quite funny, but most unlikely.
quote:
I think the world is just about fit to burn.
If I thought you actually meant it and weren't just on a wind up I'd feel quite distressed by that statement.
No. You go ahead: Feel distressed. Feel very distressed!
It's indicitive of the problem with some christian organisations though - rather than have a desire to make the world a better place by practical application, they don't feel the need to bother beause they think christ on a bike is going to come riding back into town, or that the whole world is going to burn and they'll be lifted up to heaven in the rapture leaving the non-believers and wrong-believers to perish. It's all rather defeatist and makes me wonder what the point to their lives actually is if all they're doing is waiting for the end of the world, while doing just enough to bag a ticket to eternity.
Originally posted by Mr Woolf:I thought that the article was establishing a link between dinosaurs which weighed as much as an elephant and birds?
How do you think that they concluded that the dinosaur might have had feathers?
Why sholdn't there be a link? closely related animals don't necessarily have to be the same size. Take the Hyrax for example, about the size of a small dog. It's nearest living relative is the elephant. And as far as feathers is concerned, Asarualim has more than adequately answered that above.
It's those dogs which are the same size as elephants which I'm more concerned about. Imagine one of those humping your leg? Get down, Shep!
Or those ears flapping in the wind, when he hangs his head out of the car window?
Originally posted by Mr Woolf: I hope that I will have forgotten about this conversation by then. Otherwise, my life will have been proven to have been quite sadly dissipated.
How about something much simpler to remember that's not specific to this particular conversation - "Show me the evidence for your claims". And in return, when you claim something, they can ask you to provide evidence for that.
quote:
Valid point, well made. I should have used more of a catch all characterisation, like "Atheists, people who believe in other gods, those people who believe in the true God, but deny His power, people who believe in the true God, but have been cruelly tricked by Satan into believing in their own self righteousness, people who.......
You could just refer to us all as heretics I suppose. Or rationalists, empiricists, etc.
quote:
That would be quite funny, but most unlikely.
True, Jeebus would have real difficulty climbing onto a dinosaur, especially in those sandals and that dress thing he used to wear.
quote:
No. You go ahead: Feel distressed. Feel very distressed!
So you're just twiddling your thumbs waiting for the "end times" then?
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." - Charles Bradlaugh.
Originally posted by Mr Woolf: I hope that I will have forgotten about this conversation by then. Otherwise, my life will have been proven to have been quite sadly dissipated.
How about something much simpler to remember that's not specific to this particular conversation - "Show me the evidence for your claims". And in return, when you claim something, they can ask you to provide evidence for that.
quote:
Valid point, well made. I should have used more of a catch all characterisation, like "Atheists, people who believe in other gods, those people who believe in the true God, but deny His power, people who believe in the true God, but have been cruelly tricked by Satan into believing in their own self righteousness, people who.......
You could just refer to us all as heretics I suppose. Or rationalists, empiricists, etc.
Or "The damned"
quote:
That would be quite funny, but most unlikely.
True, Jeebus would have real difficulty climbing onto a dinosaur, especially in those sandals and that dress thing he used to wear.
quote:
No. You go ahead: Feel distressed. Feel very distressed!
So you're just twiddling your thumbs waiting for the "end times" then?
If we're all The Damned can I be Captain Sensible?
quote:
Pretty much, yeah.
And you're confident that not only have you got the right interpretation of what is necessary to get into heaven when it happens, but also that you've met all necessary requirements to get past the bouncer on the Pearly Gates? Wasn't it Jeebus that said "The meek shall inherit the earth"? You don't seem that meek to me. I think you may be screwed along with the rest of us damned.
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." - Charles Bradlaugh.
If we're all The Damned can I be Captain Sensible?
quote:
Pretty much, yeah.
And you're confident that not only have you got the right interpretation of what is necessary to get into heaven when it happens, but also that you've met all necessary requirements to get past the bouncer on the Pearly Gates? Wasn't it Jeebus that said "The meek shall inherit the earth"? You don't seem that meek to me. That's because you're confusing confidence with being the opposite of meekitude. It is possible to be confident in God's promises and to be meek at the same time. The meek imperative was referenced, I believe, as to how our behaviour should be in front of God: In which case, I'm pretty meek. We, as Christians, are required to be quite bold in proclaiming the Gospel to you wannabes.
I think you may be screwed along with the rest of us damned. I may sometimes give the impression of being screwed in this secular, temporal life, but ultimately, my future's bright. Thanks for your concern.
Originally posted by Mr Woolf: That's because you're confusing confidence with being the opposite of meekitude. It is possible to be confident in God's promises and to be meek at the same time. The meek imperative was referenced, I believe, as to how our behaviour should be in front of God: In which case, I'm pretty meek. We, as Christians, are required to be quite bold in proclaiming the Gospel to you wannabes.
Shouldn't that be don't-wannabes?
quote:
I may sometimes give the impression of being screwed in this secular, temporal life, but ultimately, my future's bright. Thanks for your concern.
You hope your future's bright. Your god may really dislike you, or you might even be believing in the wrong one and the real one might take his jealousy out on you - you know how these gods feel about you worshipping other gods. It gives them the right hump. Or your god could even be a right stickler for the rules and ban you on a technicality - "Is that a woollen jumper you're wearing there, with linen trousers? Right! Off to hell with you matey!"
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." - Charles Bradlaugh.
Few People know that all the famous icons of evolution have been firmly debunked by other scientists through the years, there is actually not a single icon that has stood the test of time, evolutionists always rely on “the latest research” because all their old claims have been refuted. Here we take a closer look at those famous “icons” of “evolution”
1. Archaeopteryx (proven to be a bird) 2. Coelacanth ( living fossil ) 3. Archeoraptor (proven to be fraud) 4. horse evolution( firmly debunked) 5. whale evolution (Ambulocetus,Basilosaurus,Pakicetus) 6. Tiktaalik ( a mosaic like the present-day Platypus) 7. Familie "trees" of life (proven to be imagination) 8. Haeckel's embryo drawings (fraudulent) 9. Peppered Moths http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htm
1.Archaeopteryx
The thesis that Archaeopteryx was a "half-bird" that could not fly perfectly was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago. The absence of a sternum (breastbone) in this creature was held up as the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. (The sternum is a bone found under the thorax to which the muscles required for flight are attached. In our day, this breastbone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats, a flying mammal which belongs to a very different family.) However, the seventh Archaeopteryx fossil, which was found in 1992, disproved this argument. The reason was that in this recently discovered fossil, the breastbone that was long assumed by evolutionists to be missing was discovered to have existed after all.
It is true that Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its mouth(unserrated teeth which are VERY different from the serrated teeth of theropod dinosaurs)besides Ichthyornis dispar is also another birds which had teeth and was 100 percent bird, but these traits do not imply that the creature bore any kind of relationship to reptiles. Besides, two bird species living today, the touraco and the hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto branches. These creatures are fully birds, with no reptilian characteristics. That is why it is completely groundless to assert that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form just because of the claws on its wings.
Dr. Alan Feduccia wrote "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound feathered dinosaur. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of "paleobabble" is going to change that".
2. Coelacanth
Living coelacanths revealed how groundless the evolutionary speculation regarding them was. Contrary to what had been claimed, coelacanths had neither a primitive lung nor a large brain. The organ that evolutionist researchers had proposed as a primitive lung turned out to be nothing but a fat-filled swimbladder. Furthermore, the coelacanth, which was introduced as "a reptile candidate preparing to pass from sea to land," was in reality a fish that lived in the depths of the oceans and never approached nearer than 180 meters from the surface.
Archaeoraptor
However, the fossil was a fake and was skillfully constructed from five separate specimens. A group of researchers, among whom were also three paleontologists, proved the forgery one year later with the help of X-ray computed tomography. The dino-bird was actually the product of a Chinese evolutionist. Chinese amateurs formed the dino-bird by using glue and cement from 88 bones and stones. Research suggests that Archaeoraptor was built from the front part of the skeleton of an ancient bird, and that its body and tail included bones from four different specimens.
The interesting thing is that National Geographic published a high-profile article about such a crude forgery-and, moreover, used it as the basis for claiming that "bird evolution" scenarios had been verified-without expressing any doubts or caution in the article at all. Dr. Storrs Olson, of the famous Smithsonian Institute Natural History Museum in the USA, later said that he warned National Geographic beforehand that this fossil was a fake, but that the magazine management totally ignored him. According to Olson, "National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism."
We never have all the scientific data—new evidence comes in all the time. Missing-link claims are usually based on FRAGMENTS of bones; when more bones are discovered, the specimen turns out to be clearly one type of creature or another; not transitional at all.
Natural Selection:
It is noteworthy that the concept of natural selection was first suggested in the published observations of creationist scientist Edward Blyth in 1835 (24 years before the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species). Blyth’s work is not likely to have been unknown to Darwin, who appears to have “borrowed” the concept from Blyth, ever since which time natural selection has been erroneously attributed to Darwin and cited as evidence of evolution.
"...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. The PBS Evolution series and the Scientific American article are full of examples of this fallacy." -Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D Physical Chemistry
"Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs."
Pierre Grasse (1895 - 1985) was a French zoologist who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences.
PRESS RELEASE - Evolution dismissed at European Parliament seminar
Amongst those helping to organise the historic seminar were Dr. Dominique Tassot, Director of Centre d'Etude et de Prospectives sur la Science (C.E.P). C.E.P. is an organisation consisting of 700 French speaking scientists, intellectuals and representatives of other professions, all of whom oppose evolutionary theory on scientific grounds. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2006/10/16/press_r...ion_dismissed_at_eur
And 'yes', of course I have cut and paste this - why try and reinvent the wheel, when someone has eloquently spent time over this.
Originally posted by Asarualim: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr Woolf: That's because you're confusing confidence with being the opposite of meekitude. It is possible to be confident in God's promises and to be meek at the same time. The meek imperative was referenced, I believe, as to how our behaviour should be in front of God: In which case, I'm pretty meek. We, as Christians, are required to be quite bold in proclaiming the Gospel to you wannabes.
Shouldn't that be don't-wannabes?
I distinctly remember you saying that you wannabe Captain Sensible.
Originally posted by RedJooles: ...And 'yes', of course I have cut and paste this - why try and reinvent the wheel, when someone has eloquently spent time over this.
The problem with these "creation scientists" or "intelligent design" nuts is that when they take on science they are always to be found lacking. The above link refutes Well's claims in his book, using evidence to show that evolution stands up to them.
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." - Charles Bradlaugh.
