paleontology, for those who loves dinosaurs

Great topic, Dalia. Thanks!

Hello, i have a passion for dinosaurs, voilà...so i décide to create a thread View attachment 90804

View attachment 90806

I am new to this forum so i do the best i can and i don't speak English all the time.

There so much to say about this périod of time, like bird are descending for the dinosaurs

l'archæoptéryx

View attachment 90805


you do know there is no proof birds descended from dino's???
I know yes,
"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."

Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest PNAS research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise -- that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.

"Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."

Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?

did you know that common ancestor they talk about is a rock???

sorry there is more evidence that evolution is not just a myth but a flat out lie,,,


open your mind and look for real facts and not this imaginary world evolution is pushing,,,

You know that Carl Baugh is an ID'iot creationist quack, right?
Did you know that ID'iot creationists literally quack?
 
Archeologists have found Ruth Ginsberg's foot prints next to Brontosaurus tracks.
It appears that she was stalking it.

 
Last edited:
Bird species goes extinct...another species like it evolves in its place later:

Extinct species of bird came back from the dead, scientists find - CNN

(CNN)A previously extinct species of bird returned from the dead, reclaiming the island it previously lived on and re-evolving itself back into existence, scientists have said.


now thats funny,,,

maybe they werent extinct after all...

They were at the end of the line getting off the Ark.
 
maybe they werent extinct after all...

I wonder if the scientists thought of that!?!?

:rolleyes:


I doubt it,,,they think things just magically came to life from a rock,,,

on the other hand I dont know if they have explored every corner on the planet to make sure they were extinct first,,,thats a lot of man power but when the government is flipping the bill who knows what they can accomplish,,
 
Earth no longer has the climate to support dinosaurs.
I suspect that since dinosaurs lived all over the earth, even in the Arctic, today’s climate would do just fine for many species.
The landmasses that currently occupy the latitudes that we today call the “Arctic” were in a different location millions of years ago...
 
That's likely the tail of a modern bird.
Nope. We can tell from the vertebrae that it is not.

It was a piece in amber. The big deal is birds are the only animals with feathers, so now the paleontologists are trying to put feathers on dinosaurs in order to show that birds descended from dinosaurs. It's starting to turn out like Piltdown Man and the other fakes as we are seeing the fakes with dino birds such as archaeopteryx.

Top 10 Dinosaurs That Aren't What They Were
 
The big deal is birds are the only animals with feathers, so now the paleontologists are trying to put feathers on dinosaurs in order to show that birds descended from dinosaurs
Hilarious nonsense. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are kist making stuff up.

wpf_media-live_photos_000_558_custom_new-species-feathered-dinosaur-hints-widespread-feathers_55896_744x417.jpg
 
The highlighted bits (not the first one - that's just a link) are so dumb:
Often called “the first bird”, Archaeopteryx is one of those creatures you could find in any book on dinosaurs or evolution. Often considered to be a sort of “missing link” between reptiles and birds, Archaeopteryx has been used as a mascot by both scientists trying to prove evolution, and creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird).

However, the fossil evidence shows that both scientists and creationists were wrong. As more and more feathered dinosaurs are found in China, some of them even more similar to birds than Archaeopteryx, it becomes obvious that this creature was not the missing link, and was not a bird either, but one hundred per cent dinosaur.
paleontology - the branch of science concerned with fossil animals and plants. Notice - scientists - with no concern for evolution required whatsoever. Actually, I've yet to run across a scientist "trying to prove evolution." If you find any please slap them silly for me. Like AGW, and starkly unlike ID'iotism or creationism, evolution sets the standard for scientifically established fact. Sure, one can always scrape together some self-deluded wack jobs along with a bunch of shameless corporate hacks and deniers, but they all, always, son of a gun, wind up relying on science! in their ridiculous attempts to "disprove" science!

See, truth is, you start with a theory. If/when you find it flawed, you amend your theory. All is science! None is "wrong." Science itself is just a process. One designed to evolve. Scientific fact is established by achieving overwhelming consensus. Not "right" or "wrong" - established scientific fact.

"creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.
 
Last edited:
"creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.

The facts disprove, i.e. show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs, because dinos had moving femurs. Birds have fixed femurs to prevent their lungs from collapsing when they inhale. Their lung formations are different as discovered by Oregon State University researchers.
 
The big deal is birds are the only animals with feathers, so now the paleontologists are trying to put feathers on dinosaurs in order to show that birds descended from dinosaurs
Hilarious nonsense. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are kist making stuff up.

wpf_media-live_photos_000_558_custom_new-species-feathered-dinosaur-hints-widespread-feathers_55896_744x417.jpg

I already explained. They're not remnants of feathers, but fibers from their leathery hides. Of course, they have to be feathers in order to fit the made up evolution of birds from dinosaurs.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top