It's more that you seem to be happy to hand wave away the opinions of genuine experts who do know what they are talking about.
Yes, opinions I am quite happy to wave away if i feel that these are not adequate, but evidence (the actual observations made by scientists) I don't wave away.
So, let's look at the evidence, and please - don't wave it away:
1) found with other dinosaurs 2) dated to the same era as other dinosaurs 3) multiple specimens, not a hoax 4) features which are "avian" 5) features which are "dinosaur"
So you can take a look at ALL that and say... "feh, scientists, what do those schmucks know?"
hmmm...note that at the Archy conference only a very small minority voted for Archy being a small, lightly built coelurosaurian dinosaur.
Arphy...that's EXACTLY what gets me riled up.
It's a bird AND a dinosaur AT THE SAME TIME.
Sorry for caps, but you're saying, and I'm going to stress the point, that it's just a bird because the majority said "it was a bird".
"just a bird" and "a bird" are ENTIRELY different. Yes, really. Yes, really really. No, this is not a cop out. Yes, really really really...
So you are giving me the option of believeing that some organisms were created in what you believe to be a progression that has no need for a divine creation to intervene.
Yes, if you want to believe in a special creation by a supernatural power, that doesn't change the facts that led Darwin to the theory of evolution and natural selection. Yes, really really (ad nausaeum).
Thanks, how accommodating. as you hopeful know by now, at least from this forum, creationists fully accept mutations and natural selection.
Great! Case closed! Glad that's over wi-
However that these mechanisms can cause an increase in information (from simple to complex life forms) is the real issue.
now hang on a darned minute!
That is not what we're talking about at all! Get thee to that thread if you want to debate that absurd IDiot maxim.
If you were ill, would you get the opinion of a trained doctor? Or a florist or plumber? And if 99 doctors all told you the same thing, but one plumber told you something else, would you be tempted to believe the plumber?
That sort of thing makes me boiling mad - if the saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" can be banded about, then there are no theists in hospitals.
What makes me even more boiling mad is when it's true - anti-vaxxers, kids with diabetes dying, with treatable conditions suffering, all because their parents believe that god will personally heal their children.
If that's not bad enough, it causes innocent kids with well-meaning parents to suffer and die (whooping cough? In the 21st century, in the western world? really?).
In fact, some palaeontologists are moving to the view that some theropods should be classified as birds
quote:Birds are now all classified as living dinosaurs, but some palaeontologists argue that there is a case for classifying dromaeosaurs as birds. As Norell himself says, "If animals like Velociraptor were alive today our first impression would be that they were just very unusual looking birds."
As I said in my post about Feduccia, the opinion that Archaeopteryx is a bird was also the consensus opinion at the International Archaeopteryx Conference. So I don't think that it is a minority view.
I'm not sure that this is saying what you think it says. Calling something a "bird" doesn't mean that it's like birds alive today, and in fact the participants of the conference you refer to made this point again and again (by the way, I have a copy of the proceedings).
As for Feduccia, he's on record as saying that:
Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing.
- Alan Feduccia, quoted in Svitil, K. A. 2003. Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds. Discover 24(2):16.
wow, that brings us right back to square one and the quote from Feduccia which Arphy is parroting.
And Arphy IS parroting - that quote is dredged up from the quote mines of AiG where many a twisted scholar spends his days sifting through the words of wiser men looking for something, no matter how badly quoted and inaccurate when taken deliberately out of context, to agree with their viewpoint for, apparently, nothing more than a ludicrous argument from authority.
Even Feduccia knows that his quote will be misused, and deliberately so.
Why, then, is it still on ICR's, AiG's and every other IDiot and creotard's website as gold-standard anti-evolution propaganda?
Arphy, as I and every other durned libral atheist hate-monger is very obviously going to hell and as such obviously evil people, we don't need to be listened to by folks so enlightened as they, can you ask AiG and ICR why they have a known bad quote on their books?
surely, in the christian way, they'd prefer to admit their mistakes and remove it.
The facts are that Archaeopteryx has: * a long bony tail * teeth * claws and other non-avian traits.
Even so, why should this mean that birds evolved from dinosaurs? You first assume evolution and then see if you can make it fit.
Let me revise that list:
Unfused bones in the skull.
Cervical vertebrae articular surfaces not saddle-shaped.
Coracoid is not strut-like.
Unfused trunk vertebrae.
Only 5 sacral vertebrae.
Fused pubic bones.
Fibula reaches ankle.
Long bony tail.
Strange as it may sound, a large number of birds have vestigial claws on their wings, so that's not a significant claim, but I'm unaware of any living bird that has claws on all three digits, as was the case in Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs.
And just to further emphasize the point, here's a list of traits shared by coelurosaurs (a group of theropod dinosaurs) and living birds: