Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!Make a forum zoo! |
| Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What annoys you about paleontology?; Rant on about moronic theories, complaints, or just animals that annoy you. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 28 2013, 05:04 PM (256,461 Views) | |
| TyrantTR | Nov 4 2013, 05:58 PM Post #586 |
![]() ![]()
|
Agreed, this structure does have its limits, which is why it ossifies to an extent on some birds. And I even admitted its more pronounced in some birds than others. But some of the anchors for some of these birds of prey really are not all that distinct from the anchors seen in some Dromaeosaurs. So I don't find it at all a stretch to see some sort of pronounced brow on one. Again its seen in all extant sauropsids. |
![]() |
|
| Similis | Nov 4 2013, 06:03 PM Post #587 |
![]() ![]()
|
To take an example that is not so distinct, chickens don't have very pronounced eyebrows, while their face looks sort of what I'd call a 'safe stock' one for the non-avians that didn't have much supporting structure for the brows over their faces. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 4 2013, 06:07 PM Post #588 |
![]()
|
You are forgetting that they have found T.rex scales. |
![]() |
|
| Captain Phasma | Nov 4 2013, 06:10 PM Post #589 |
|
Captain of the First Order and Boba Fett 2.0
![]()
|
I just want to ask something. You guys do know Darwin just thought up all of this stuff on evolution and his entire theory is based off of finches' beaks, right? |
![]() |
|
| TyrantTR | Nov 4 2013, 06:13 PM Post #590 |
![]() ![]()
|
If that were the case, its a good thing rigorous study has supplied us with far more evidence than just finches beaks. I linked you the examples. Did you read them? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 4 2013, 06:17 PM Post #591 |
![]() ![]()
|
Yes, but that doesn't mean that rex couldn't have had some feathers on the top of it's body. Edited by Dr. Hax, Nov 4 2013, 06:50 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Captain Phasma | Nov 4 2013, 06:21 PM Post #592 |
|
Captain of the First Order and Boba Fett 2.0
![]()
|
Yes, I did. However, I stated that DARWIN developed the entire theory of evolution on finches' beaks. He thought up all this stuff on the H.M.S. Beagle and when he returned, people just accepted it. My teacher's college professor on evolution said, "I know it's wrong, but right now, we just do this for the money. So much of the world's economy is based on it, if we came out and told everyone we were actually created, there would be mass chaos." Spontaneous generation was already disproved. If evolution is correct, spontaneous generation would have to be correct, but it's not. |
![]() |
|
| Jules | Nov 4 2013, 06:22 PM Post #593 |
![]()
Mihi est imperare orbi universo
![]()
|
Nope. Those were Gorgosaurus, and given where it lived, making it entirely scaled would make the poor creature freeze its Theropodian arse off. These scales were almost certainly from the underbelly and the legs and do not prove in any way that it was scaly. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Nov 4 2013, 06:25 PM Post #594 |
![]() ![]()
|
but we don't know from what area of the body they came from. and we know that coelurosaurs weren't fully covered in feathers, but had sclay areas like the underside o the tail. |
![]() |
|
| TyrantTR | Nov 4 2013, 06:28 PM Post #595 |
![]() ![]()
|
I could not care less what Darwin believed, or what you think evolution was founded on. I could not care less what your teacher thinks either. Despite what creationists like to think, Darwin isn't an idol of the "evolutionists". He is hardly a past time, what matters is evidence for which there is plenty accumulated since Darwin's conception of the theory. It is a fact of life and I have already demonstrated to you how this is true. We can observe, test and even predict evolution and on that basis, who the hell cares about what Darwin thought? Why do you insist on challenging the very first evidences of evolution instead of the mountains of literature that has supported the theory since. It would be like challenging the fact that the earth was round by saying it was theorized by recording the angles of shadows. Spontaneous generation has absolutely nothing to do with evolution either. Again if you want to go over the origins of life on this earth we absolutely can. But call it by its respective name (abiogenisis). It is as well worth noting evolution was not immediately accepted on Darwin's return. He was widely criticized and his theory was not taught in public schools until 20 years after he initially penned it. Edited by TyrantTR, Nov 4 2013, 06:43 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Sheather | Nov 4 2013, 07:47 PM Post #596 |
![]()
Thank you for the set, Azrael!
![]()
|
Aardvark, we will never come to an agreement if you don't try to figure anything out for yourself. You're acting cocky like you've so totally disproved us but really, all you have done is ignored our rebuttals or picked out a single misspeaking or a single tiny detail and based an entire "Aha! I win" out of it when you've anything but stumped us. I mean, maybe there are some things we just can't explain yet but that does not mean God did it. If for everything I didn't understand was God's doing, he's given me a lot of math tests. That, in my opinion, is the primitive, early man's solution to understanding what he could not at the time understand but which we do now. Your entire education, based on what we've heard, is biased towards Creationism and seems determined to make evolution sound so ridiculous you will never believe it. I can probably tell you everything you are being taught on the subject is completely wrong. I do recommend you read through the links we've provided. I don't mean to sound rude but it just gets a bit tiring after a while because you're just so opposed to it and deny any evidence or completely true rebuttals we give, just going back to "my science book says" or "my professor says". Well, in my opinion, they are wrong. Just because someone says something doesn't make it true; when I see evidence of God, even a shred of it, I'll maybe think about it. But right now, I have countless millions of visible examples of evolution's existence and one old, outdated book, written thousands of years ago before we understood the world, saying it's wrong. All I can say is evolution has an enormous amount of evidence and to deny its existence is like denying gravity or the moon. Now as far as the scales on Tyrannosaurus I believe it was also determined (I forgot where I read this, though, so maybe it's wrong) that those scale impressions were much more like the skin of a modern bird than a reptile's scales and most likely had feathering over them. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 4 2013, 08:01 PM Post #597 |
|
Pull my finger!
![]()
|
Aardvark, just understand that evolution is real, no matter if you like it or not, ok?
Edited by Fluffs, Nov 4 2013, 08:02 PM.
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 4 2013, 08:18 PM Post #598 |
![]()
|
1) And the theory of gravity was developed based off an apple hitting someone on the head, I don't see your point here. 2) Actually, he was too frightened to even reveal his theory for around twenty years. Even after he revealed it there was much debate & it took years before people even started to consider that there might be some truth to it. 3) How is the economy based on evolution? Please elaborate. There is no giant evolution industry. I highly doubt people's reaction to being told they were created would be like this: ![]() 4)
Edited by MarxRaptor, Nov 4 2013, 08:23 PM.
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 4 2013, 08:45 PM Post #599 |
|
I stand in the shadows waiting for you to return me to the light.
![]()
|
OR even parts of the foot to be better to show that it was at more or least fully feathered. |
![]() |
|
| Murdock129 | Nov 4 2013, 08:48 PM Post #600 |
![]()
|
1. Yes, yes he did, he saw evolution in action, based a theory on it in a logical manner. Furthermore while that is where his theory originated, there is much more proof than just the finches beaks, that is merely how he discovered it. Archimedes came up with the theory or volume displacement in water simply by getting into his bath, does that make it not a valid theory despite the vast amounts of evidence to support it? 2. I am unsure how to put this better than Marxraptor already has, he sat on the idea and developed it for a long time before revealing it publicly. As for people accepting it immediately, it took lots of debate and proof to get the theory accepted. Heck if it had simply been accepted immediately and widely without large amounts of truth then any unverified assertion could be widely accepted in such a manner. No it was the amount of evidence that allowed the theory to gain recognition and to be accepted, especially as it's stood up to scientific analysis unlike many other theories that flourished such as the Four Humours theory, which couldn't be disproved since no major studies or analysis could be done to combat it, simply the assumption that it was correct and circumstantial evidence 3. Your teacher's college professor sounds like an absolutely awful teacher. He gives a basic statement like that as fact, disputes a well known scientific theory with nothing beyond the blind assertion that he knows it to be wrong and then claimed the world economy is based on the theory of evolution and that saying it's false, something the religious fringes love to do on a weekly basis along with 'scientists' they will pay to give them the 'proof' they want by the way, would cause mass chaos is obviously wrong and makes little to no sense. The economy is not based on evolution, and the theory of evolution has little major effect outside scientific and religious circles. As for mass chaos, we believed up until only a couple of centuries ago in one version of the creation story or another, to claim there would be mass chaos from the theory of evolution being considered invalid (something most people with a passable knowledge on the subject would likely ignore) is false and seems like a desperate attempt at either scaremongering or propaganda to fit this man or woman's agenda. Then again perhaps they don't have an agenda, and are in fact simply ignorant on the subject, but if that was the case how did they become a college professor teaching evolution 4. Spontaneous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. This would appear to be distinct proof of evolution as Spontaneous generation focuses on the idea that animals came from essentially nothing (like the idea of maggots coming from dead flesh. Evolution states that all living organisms are descended from similar organisms, and that over many thousands and millions of years those organisms become more different from one another due to adaption to the environment around them. |
![]() |
|
| 4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups








Coelurosaurs were feathered, and feathers are not lost when the animal moves to a warmer climate, as they are beneficial as an isolant. Secondly, as I just said, there is no reason for it to lose it's feathers - unlike fur, feathers can not make an animal overheat. 







