When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

[tuttle]

Scientists Discover a Dinosaur Tail Preserved in Amber: The amber sample showcased the delicate feathers of a tiny dinosaur.

uhh...

That Thing With Feathers Trapped in Amber? It Was a Dinosaur Tail

[UncleBob]

Scientists Discover a Dinosaur Tail Preserved in Amber: The amber sample showcased the delicate feathers of a tiny dinosaur.

uhh...

That Thing With Feathers Trapped in Amber? It Was a Dinosaur Tail

Yes. Checking SD.

[UncleBob]

This thread offered an interesting possibility of looking at what evidence would be required for a Christian to modify his or her view of evolution. Darth's first post offered the position:

My daughter was watching a show on PBS called, "Dinosaur Train". It is usually a fun show. Well today, the little dinosaurs were on the hunt, looking for the dinosaur that belonged to the feathers they found. Well, they found a velicaraptor who had feathers and was showing them how colorful they were.

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.

I think what gets me is, I watch shows on dinosaurs, and they tell you how they hunted, acted, mated, and lived. And they conclude all this from bones, and not documenting a real live dinosaur. Something stinks in subarbia.

It just seems they are making up "facts" to prove their theory's.

Then, a few posts later, tuttle offered the best measure possible:

Evolutionists want dinosaurs to have feathers because it fits into their theory that 'Dinosaurs evolved into birds'. Until there are actual evidence for feathers found I'll continue to rail against this. I'm not just talking about fossilized bird creatures either. If they want to put feathers on raptors and other large dinosaurs then they need to have substantial evidence before it is taught as fact.

And Infidel offered the best hypothesis in the 2nd post from that:

darth, I assume you have missed the 'banter' twixt infidel and I on this matter?

Ah, there you are

Until there are actual evidence for feathers found I'll continue to rail against this.

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

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

So I have been watching over 7 years. It has been fascinating. Thank you all!

[tuttle]

Scientists Discover a Dinosaur Tail Preserved in Amber: The amber sample showcased the delicate feathers of a tiny dinosaur.

uhh...

That Thing With Feathers Trapped in Amber? It Was a Dinosaur Tail

Yes. Checking SD.

I'm a little slow. What's SD?

[UncleBob]

Scientists Discover a Dinosaur Tail Preserved in Amber: The amber sample showcased the delicate feathers of a tiny dinosaur.

uhh...

That Thing With Feathers Trapped in Amber? It Was a Dinosaur Tail

Yes. Checking SD.

I'm a little slow. What's SD?

Standard deviation.

[tuttle]

Scientists Discover a Dinosaur Tail Preserved in Amber: The amber sample showcased the delicate feathers of a tiny dinosaur.

uhh...

That Thing With Feathers Trapped in Amber? It Was a Dinosaur Tail

Yes. Checking SD.

I'm a little slow. What's SD?

Standard deviation.

I don't even know what you're getting at. I think you play games in your head sometimes. What else could be the point of bringing up the same story in the same thread two years later after we've already talked it to death?

[UncleBob]

Scientists Discover a Dinosaur Tail Preserved in Amber: The amber sample showcased the delicate feathers of a tiny dinosaur.

uhh...

That Thing With Feathers Trapped in Amber? It Was a Dinosaur Tail

Yes. Checking SD.

I'm a little slow. What's SD?

Standard deviation.

I don't even know what you're getting at. I think you play games in your head sometimes. What else could be the point of bringing up the same story in the same thread two years later after we've already talked it to death?

Simple: To compare responses then with responses now. For instance, last time the evidence was equivocated away for the sake of the creationist position. This time, the response was simply an implied ad hominem. So, this particular thread has run its course (for hypothesis 1, anyway).

[tuttle]

Scientists Discover a Dinosaur Tail Preserved in Amber: The amber sample showcased the delicate feathers of a tiny dinosaur.

uhh...

That Thing With Feathers Trapped in Amber? It Was a Dinosaur Tail

Yes. Checking SD.

I'm a little slow. What's SD?

Standard deviation.

I don't even know what you're getting at. I think you play games in your head sometimes. What else could be the point of bringing up the same story in the same thread two years later after we've already talked it to death?

Simple: To compare responses then with responses now. For instance, last time the evidence was equivocated away for the sake of the creationist position. This time, the response was simply an implied ad hominem. So, this particular thread has run its course (for hypothesis 1, anyway).

So......games in your head.

[UncleBob]

Scientists Discover a Dinosaur Tail Preserved in Amber: The amber sample showcased the delicate feathers of a tiny dinosaur.

uhh...

That Thing With Feathers Trapped in Amber? It Was a Dinosaur Tail

Yes. Checking SD.

I'm a little slow. What's SD?

Standard deviation.

I don't even know what you're getting at. I think you play games in your head sometimes. What else could be the point of bringing up the same story in the same thread two years later after we've already talked it to death?

Simple: To compare responses then with responses now. For instance, last time the evidence was equivocated away for the sake of the creationist position. This time, the response was simply an implied ad hominem. So, this particular thread has run its course (for hypothesis 1, anyway).

So......games in your head.

Oh no. It's the written record that matters.

[infidel]

So......games in your head.

[gaining_age]

So......games in your head.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa..... Bob is really into the soft sciences*. I can appreciate the "in your head" reference but that looks like real math based economics




*soft science is more survey related, etc. And I have noticed that saying "soft" vs. "hard" science becomes a debate topic--- it's meant as a gentle jab in this post.

[tuttle]

So......games in your head.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa..... Bob is really into the soft sciences*. I can appreciate the "in your head" reference but that looks like real math based economics




*soft science is more survey related, etc. And I have noticed that saying "soft" vs. "hard" science becomes a debate topic--- it's meant as a gentle jab in this post.

[UncleBob]

Dinosaur DNA clues unpicked by researchers at University of Kent

It is notable that birds are among the most varied animal groups on Earth. If, as Prof Griffin thinks, dinosaurs also had a large number of chromosomes it might explain why they too came in such a range of shapes and sizes.

"We think it generates variation. Having a lot of chromosomes enables dinosaurs to shuffle their genes around much more than other types of animals. This shuffling means that dinosaurs can evolve more quickly and so help them survive so long as the planet changed," Prof Griffin said.

Dr Rebecca O'Connor, from the University of Kent, said: "The fossil evidence and now our evidence reinforces the idea that rather than birds and dinosaurs being distant relatives, they are one in the same. The birds around us today are dinosaurs."

[Onyx]

Ok. This thread reached its zenith on page 52. You’re welcome.

[UncleBob]

Check Out This Incredible Extinct Bird From the Cretaceous Period