When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

[Bigwill]

Evolutionists want dinosaurs to have feathers because it fits into their theory that 'Dinosaurs evolved into birds'.

Yes it's all part of the Vast Darwinian Conspiracy.

True or false: a scientist who interprets the data for himself and determines that there is a Creator who intelligently designed the world will most likely be denied tenure at the non-Christian university where he works, on the basis of said conclusion.

So what you're saying is Christian universities employ "scientists" who make up their own conclusions which are not scientifically valid? Interesting.

No. What I'm saying is that SOME Christian universities won't deny tenure to a scientist who disagrees with the scientific community (you know, like Einstein, Newton, and Galileo did...).

But way to answer the question.

[infidel]

Good grief! There is right wing nuts and left wing nuts with motivation to take over the world. Unfortunately, there's little room for balanced common sense. If people can believe that Eve was created using a rib from Adam, why the heck can't they believe that God gave a dinosaur feathers?

Because they'd have to admit that something they previously believed was wrong*, and we wouldn't want to start down that slippery slope.

* for some definition of "wrong"

[Bigwill]

Good grief! There is right wing nuts and left wing nuts with motivation to take over the world. Unfortunately, there's little room for balanced common sense. If people can believe that Eve was created using a rib from Adam, why the heck can't they believe that God gave a dinosaur feathers?

Because they'd have to admit that something they previously believed was wrong*, and we wouldn't want to start down that slippery slope.

* for some definition of "wrong"

I'm curious whether you're referencing the fundamentalist Christians or the fundamentalist scientistic scientists? (Or just fundamentalists?)

[infidel]

Evolutionists want dinosaurs to have feathers because it fits into their theory that 'Dinosaurs evolved into birds'.

Yes it's all part of the Vast Darwinian Conspiracy.

True or false: a scientist who interprets the data for himself and determines that there is a Creator who intelligently designed the world will most likely be denied tenure at the non-Christian university where he works, on the basis of said conclusion.

So what you're saying is Christian universities employ "scientists" who make up their own conclusions which are not scientifically valid? Interesting.

No. What I'm saying is that SOME Christian universities won't deny tenure to a scientist who disagrees with the scientific community (you know, like Einstein, Newton, and Galileo did...).

But way to answer the question.

That's not what you said, you specifically referred to those holding non-scientific conclusions. Disagreement is part of science. "Intelligent design" is not testable, falsifiable, verifiable, repeatable, it isn't derivable from mathematics, it's literally nothing more than saying "we can't imagine this happening biologically so some intelligence* did it".

* for some definition of "intelligence" that doesn't officially mean GOD even though we all know it does

[infidel]

Good grief! There is right wing nuts and left wing nuts with motivation to take over the world. Unfortunately, there's little room for balanced common sense. If people can believe that Eve was created using a rib from Adam, why the heck can't they believe that God gave a dinosaur feathers?

Because they'd have to admit that something they previously believed was wrong*, and we wouldn't want to start down that slippery slope.

* for some definition of "wrong"

I'm curious whether you're referencing the fundamentalist Christians or the fundamentalist scientistic scientists? (Or just fundamentalists?)

LOL

[Hovannes]

They got 'em at a Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco. Which is also why they are also extinct.

[Bigwill]

Evolutionists want dinosaurs to have feathers because it fits into their theory that 'Dinosaurs evolved into birds'.

Yes it's all part of the Vast Darwinian Conspiracy.

True or false: a scientist who interprets the data for himself and determines that there is a Creator who intelligently designed the world will most likely be denied tenure at the non-Christian university where he works, on the basis of said conclusion.

So what you're saying is Christian universities employ "scientists" who make up their own conclusions which are not scientifically valid? Interesting.

No. What I'm saying is that SOME Christian universities won't deny tenure to a scientist who disagrees with the scientific community (you know, like Einstein, Newton, and Galileo did...).

But way to answer the question.

That's not what you said, you specifically referred to those holding non-scientific conclusions. Disagreement is part of science. "Intelligent design" is not testable, falsifiable, verifiable, repeatable, it isn't derivable from mathematics, it's literally nothing more than saying "we can't imagine this happening biologically so some intelligence* did it".

* for some definition of "intelligence" that doesn't officially mean GOD even though we all know it does

Way to answer the question.

[Thunktank]

Good grief! There is right wing nuts and left wing nuts with motivation to take over the world. Unfortunately, there's little room for balanced common sense. If people can believe that Eve was created using a rib from Adam, why the heck can't they believe that God gave a dinosaur feathers?

Because they'd have to admit that something they previously believed was wrong*, and we wouldn't want to start down that slippery slope.

* for some definition of "wrong"

I'm curious whether you're referencing the fundamentalist Christians or the fundamentalist scientistic scientists? (Or just fundamentalists?)

LOL

Yes

[Thunktank]

Evolutionists want dinosaurs to have feathers because it fits into their theory that 'Dinosaurs evolved into birds'.

Yes it's all part of the Vast Darwinian Conspiracy.

True or false: a scientist who interprets the data for himself and determines that there is a Creator who intelligently designed the world will most likely be denied tenure at the non-Christian university where he works, on the basis of said conclusion.

So what you're saying is Christian universities employ "scientists" who make up their own conclusions which are not scientifically valid? Interesting.

No. What I'm saying is that SOME Christian universities won't deny tenure to a scientist who disagrees with the scientific community (you know, like Einstein, Newton, and Galileo did...).

But way to answer the question.

That's not what you said, you specifically referred to those holding non-scientific conclusions. Disagreement is part of science. "Intelligent design" is not testable, falsifiable, verifiable, repeatable, it isn't derivable from mathematics, it's literally nothing more than saying "we can't imagine this happening biologically so some intelligence* did it".

* for some definition of "intelligence" that doesn't officially mean GOD even though we all know it does

Way to answer the question.

You're both right. And answering a question with a question is often more profound than simply answering a question. Unless of course one gets hung up on the meaning of pirates.

[TNLawPiper]

The short (and bluntly serious) answer to Darth's question: It's PBS.

As but another example of their 'agenda' (which the liberal media wants the average American to think is nothing but a right-wing conspiracy theory) is Arthur. In one episode, one of Arthur's friends is going to have a baby brother or sister, and Arthur asks his Mom if he can have one too. Her answer, I kid you not, was 'babies are nice, but if we had one, we wouldn't have enough money to go on vacation and buy you toys.' I told my son 'no more Arthur'.

Ouch. That sounds more like a joke for The Simpsons than a line for (a supposedly educational) Arthur.

[Bigwill]

The short (and bluntly serious) answer to Darth's question: It's PBS.

As but another example of their 'agenda' (which the liberal media wants the average American to think is nothing but a right-wing conspiracy theory) is Arthur. In one episode, one of Arthur's friends is going to have a baby brother or sister, and Arthur asks his Mom if he can have one too. Her answer, I kid you not, was 'babies are nice, but if we had one, we wouldn't have enough money to go on vacation and buy you toys.' I told my son 'no more Arthur'.

Ouch. That sounds more like a joke for The Simpsons than a line for (a supposedly educational) Arthur.

I don't think it was a 'sarcastic joke'. Sarcasm is lost on three year olds.

It was indoctrination. Plain and simple.

[TNLawPiper]

The short (and bluntly serious) answer to Darth's question: It's PBS.

As but another example of their 'agenda' (which the liberal media wants the average American to think is nothing but a right-wing conspiracy theory) is Arthur. In one episode, one of Arthur's friends is going to have a baby brother or sister, and Arthur asks his Mom if he can have one too. Her answer, I kid you not, was 'babies are nice, but if we had one, we wouldn't have enough money to go on vacation and buy you toys.' I told my son 'no more Arthur'.

Ouch. That sounds more like a joke for The Simpsons than a line for (a supposedly educational) Arthur.

I don't think it was a 'sarcastic joke'. Sarcasm is lost on three year olds.

It was indoctrination. Plain and simple.

Of course. I agree with you. Maybe I should have +1d it.

[Thunktank]

Toys and vacations/children/dinosaurs with feathers

+1d

[infidel]

The short (and bluntly serious) answer to Darth's question: It's PBS.

As but another example of their 'agenda' (which the liberal media wants the average American to think is nothing but a right-wing conspiracy theory) is Arthur. In one episode, one of Arthur's friends is going to have a baby brother or sister, and Arthur asks his Mom if he can have one too. Her answer, I kid you not, was 'babies are nice, but if we had one, we wouldn't have enough money to go on vacation and buy you toys.' I told my son 'no more Arthur'.

Ouch. That sounds more like a joke for The Simpsons than a line for (a supposedly educational) Arthur.

I don't think it was a 'sarcastic joke'. Sarcasm is lost on three year olds.

It was indoctrination. Plain and simple.

Arthur already has a baby sister

[UncleBob]

Really? When did this happen? Have scientist found fosilized feathers? Have they found dinosaur feathers perfectly preserved, showing their colors? I have never seen such proof, not saying it doesn't exist.

They have found pigmentation in some dinosaur feather fossils: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rs-nature/

[Bigwill]

The short (and bluntly serious) answer to Darth's question: It's PBS.

As but another example of their 'agenda' (which the liberal media wants the average American to think is nothing but a right-wing conspiracy theory) is Arthur. In one episode, one of Arthur's friends is going to have a baby brother or sister, and Arthur asks his Mom if he can have one too. Her answer, I kid you not, was 'babies are nice, but if we had one, we wouldn't have enough money to go on vacation and buy you toys.' I told my son 'no more Arthur'.

Ouch. That sounds more like a joke for The Simpsons than a line for (a supposedly educational) Arthur.

I don't think it was a 'sarcastic joke'. Sarcasm is lost on three year olds.

It was indoctrination. Plain and simple.

Arthur already has a baby sister

He has a little sister, but she's not a baby.

The mother was rejecting Arthur's idea of a third child. Three's too many, remember? ZPG.

[TNLawPiper]

Toys and vacations/children/dinosaurs with feathers

+1d

+1

[infidel]

The short (and bluntly serious) answer to Darth's question: It's PBS.

As but another example of their 'agenda' (which the liberal media wants the average American to think is nothing but a right-wing conspiracy theory) is Arthur. In one episode, one of Arthur's friends is going to have a baby brother or sister, and Arthur asks his Mom if he can have one too. Her answer, I kid you not, was 'babies are nice, but if we had one, we wouldn't have enough money to go on vacation and buy you toys.' I told my son 'no more Arthur'.

Ouch. That sounds more like a joke for The Simpsons than a line for (a supposedly educational) Arthur.

I don't think it was a 'sarcastic joke'. Sarcasm is lost on three year olds.

It was indoctrination. Plain and simple.

Arthur already has a baby sister

He has a little sister, but she's not a baby.

The mother was rejecting Arthur's idea of a third child. Three's too many, remember? ZPG.

Not DW, Baby Kate. You must have seen an older episode I guess. Or you live in some alternate PBS universe

[tuttle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_ ... f_feathers

Somehow I think you'll continue to rail against it no matter what.

it's like you know me or something

even honest evolutionists can't seriously call these actual 'feathers'. If pressed they'll use the term 'proto feathers' as if this is simply the first step into becoming 'real' feathers. Again, feather-like is simply feather-like.

[infidel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_ ... f_feathers

Somehow I think you'll continue to rail against it no matter what.

it's like you know me or something

even honest evolutionists can't seriously call these actual 'feathers'. If pressed they'll use the term 'proto feathers' as if this is simply the first step into becoming 'real' feathers. Again, feather-like is simply feather-like.

Heh... but are they feather-like hairs or hair-like feathers?

Were these bird-like dinosaurs or dinosaur-like birds?

Does it matter?