And we know all this from studying the millions of years old fossils of dinosaurs and how they changed over 160 millin years when the ruled the earth.
This guy seems to think the tree of life is just a single straight line. So what if something from 200 million years ago looked "more bird-like" than some other thing from 70 million years ago? Unless one is a direct descendant of the other it's irrelevant.
@BereanBeacon1 DNA markes make a tree of life that is the same as Darwin's tree of life. Every way of classifying animals and plants comes up with evolutions tree of life.
@NachyoLulz5596 Not so. We are all for real science, not the science fiction of evolution. Of course we believe God did it, but to discuss real science doesn't have to include the Bible.
You don't understand. I'm as religious as the next guy, but faith and science are two totally different ideas, and humanity simply cannot comprehend the depth of either. The only possible way to mix them would be to say God is in charge of evolution.
@NachyoLulz5596 What you believe determines where you will spend eternity after death. Even if you believe in the creation account, you could still know hell too late.
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. Galatians 6:7,8
@TruthSeekingOne When the first reptile evoled did all the fish go away?? No. Just becasue dinosaurs with feathers were still aroung after birds evolved means nothing. But you don't understand evolution so you might think it is a problem.
@gregrutz Evolution suggests that birds evolved from raptors, and yet birds were around (according to evolutionist time scale which is garbage anyways..) BEFORE the raptors which supposedly took millions of years of evolution to create the first birds, you are running in circles man. You just attack creationist as not "understand(ing) evolution" and that is your whole argument against me?
I'll tell you what, EVOLUTION doesn't understand evolution, because it isn't comprehensible.
@gregrutz No you are using a completely wrong analogy.
I am saying that YOUR supposed imaginative story of evolution claims that raptors came before the birds and evolved in such a way that birds came forth from the raptors, YET we see Archaeopteryx in the "fossil record" MUCH earlier than the raptors, often evilutionists show Archaeopteryx deceivingly transitioning from raptors into birds.
Even if all the dates seemed to fit together it would still PROVE nothing, it is all imagination.
@TruthSeekingOne You don't even have the fact correct. They dated a bird at an earlier date than Archaeopteryx. But that does not prove evolution wrong because it is not a ladder. We still have fish even thought some walked out of the water on to land.
Or Birds and feathered Dinosaurs evolved side by side, but still from a common ancestor. Many things have evolved to fly by different means. Feathers might be a common result of scale mutations.
@gregrutz No the theory gets more upset the more facts are found, soft tissue in a 65 million year old bone, get real!
Assumption after assumption, and yet they are seeing their assumptions proven wrong all the time, you can really put faith in that? Best of luck to you then, you have stronger faith than I do in God it seems, a blind faith I could not have.
@gregrutz Excuse me but veins are soft tissue. Mary acknowledged that they found soft tissue, are you ill?
Here are some assumptions that cannot be proven using science which evolution bases the whole of their beliefs on:
1. Radioactive decay rates are consistent through all of Earth's history and no changes in the Earth (e.g. a catastrophic flood) have influenced these currently observed rates.
@TruthSeekingOne 1. The laws of nature do not change. Uniformitarianism is true or nothing would make sense. Science could not be done if everything changed daily.
2. Don't understand, fossils are dead, they don't procreate.
3. Science does not use the supernatural, it changes no experiment. See #1
@gregrutz To list all the assumptions would take pages and pages, why don't you actually look into it for yourself and stop ASSUMING that there is no evidence which contradicts evolutionary theory such as trees which run through multiple layers of strata and indicate the strata do not take millions of years to form, or soft tissue that didn't decay in supposed millions of years (impossible).
@TruthSeekingOne Wow, trees go through multiple layers that were laid down quickly and didn't take millions of years. No shit. And that proves layers can be laid down quickly. Correct, some layer like the ones at Mt. St Helens were laid down quickly. Exactly like Geologists would expect. What was your point?
Neither of you seem to get it. Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur. Yes it was feathered,but it shares many characteristics with reptiles as well such as teeth,a long bony tail,and three claws protruding from its hands. It was more of a "missing link" than a bird. The same applies to the former "bird" Anchiornis as it was another sort of halfway point between birds and dinosaurs. It would be several million years before the first TRUE birds would evolve;AFTER the first known raptor Utahraptor
I made it to 15:39 of this lecture and had to stop because there is just so much misinformation in it. This person is either a bold face liar or he does not know the first thing about the fossils he is talking about. Either way, nothing he says should be taken seriously.
The taxonomical definition of a bird includes traits from Theropod dinosaurs. Air field bones is one of those features and it is shared with all Saurischian dinosaurs. In addition, the brain is much the same as Theropods.
I do not see the point of this lecture about Archaeopteryx so far, I do not know any paleontologists that thinks it was not a bird, they just accept that it is also a Theropod like any bird.
9:35 WHAT? Did this moron just say that dinosaurs were not around in the Triassic? The first dinosaurs show up in the Triassic. It is moments like this that I wonder if he is just simply ignorant (then why is he giving a lecture as if he knew something) or just simply lying.
Many dinosaurs that are bird like predate Archaeopteryx, such as Anchiornis. The order of the fossils you presented does not help. I wonder again, are you just ignorant of the fossil record or are you willfully lying?
Yes, birds evolved from dinosaurs, which are why they still are dinosaurs. Just like humans are still apes.
Not true, there are many other types of dinosaurs that walked on two legs that were not Theropod dinosaurs, such as many Ornithischian (which include Hadrosaurs a.k.a. duck-billed) dinosaurs.
Theropod feet, for the most part are identical to most modern birds.
There is still controversy, just not a lot. People believe there were birds before raptors (their direct ancestors) because of Archaeopteryx. What people DON'T realize is that IT was a dinosaur.
@NachyoLulz5596 Archaeopteryx is classified as a bird. There's no controversy over whether birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, timeframe is subject to minor debate.
AS for archaeopteryx, it shares more features with dinosaurs than birds and I've seen several different sources classifying the animal as either or, though the ones that support the latter are online encyclopedias.
If that link was informational, it didn't work. Could you post another?
And if that is true, why do so many sites say otherwise? I am aware of it's status as a "missing link" but even if it is accepted as a bird, than the acception is inaccurate because it in more comparable to the former.
All avian traits are technically dinosaur traits as birds are part of the superorder Dinosauria, but Archaeopteryx had features which specifically distinguish birds from theropod dinosaurs, hallux and wishbone being the major two.
And yes, but it also has many traits distinguishing the other way, such as teeth, a long, bony tail, and three claws which protrude from the hands on the wing.
@NachyoLulz5596 Teeth aren't a reasonable diagnostic feature, modern birds can have teeth if atavistic genes are reactivated. There are also birds that retain claws.
Yes, but so is every other therapod characteristic, despite this, the are still called birds (I know many are classified as dinosaurs, but there are Avian and nonavian dinosaurs meaning an animal CAN be both at once). I am well aware that factually, whatever the newest record is becomes fact, but science has been wrong before. This is simply what I've determined from my research.
@NachyoLulz5596 They're both in the sense that Aves as a whole is a class of Dinosauria. But just to nitpick, Archaeopteryx has more exclusively avian features.
Fair enough. I can see I'm fighting a losing battle here. I'll agree with you on a factual level, but what I've read just seem to put it closer to dinosaurs. Unfortunately, many of those are more circumstantial that absolute.
Anyway, nice talking with you. Always nice to has a legitimate debate with someone.
maybe similar species,but there is absolutely no proof that evolution is science im not a creationist im a shut up both of you until either side gets more than"you are just gonna have to take our word for it"for an answer.theres several sites that offer thousands of dollars that can be won by showing actual proof of evolution and another on anyone who can find where the government ratified the amendment that lets the fedaral reserve to charge an income tax its been up for years money there still
ROFL. Why waste your time with a 41 minute video on this? Especially presented by someone who clearly struggles with the subject and brings nothing new to the "debate" (as if there really is one).
The evidence is in and we know that birds evolved from dinosaurs. There's mountains of compelling, multidisciplinary proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Indeed there is solid ground to state that birds ARE theropod dinosaurs!
''They have bird hips but are not at all like birds'' Made me laugh.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
And we know all this from studying the millions of years old fossils of dinosaurs and how they changed over 160 millin years when the ruled the earth.
gregrutz 5 months ago
Why do BAND supporters or creationists or whatever not do more research before they give lectures/seminars?
They always leave out, misinterpret or are plain wrong about so many things.
If you want to come up with a convincing argument, do research and cover all bases.
Tomozaurus 8 months ago
It also had teeth, birds don't have teeth, dinosaurs do. A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL
gregrutz 9 months ago
This guy seems to think the tree of life is just a single straight line. So what if something from 200 million years ago looked "more bird-like" than some other thing from 70 million years ago? Unless one is a direct descendant of the other it's irrelevant.
serpwidgets 10 months ago
@serpwidgets Real science has killed the tree of life (death)
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Is that supposed to mean something to anyone other than yourself?
serpwidgets 10 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 DNA markes make a tree of life that is the same as Darwin's tree of life. Every way of classifying animals and plants comes up with evolutions tree of life.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Give unto the Lord, O ye mighty, give unto the Lord glory and strength. Psalm 29:1
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 9 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
You're trying to use faith to support your theory for science. It doesn't work that way.
NachyoLulz5596 8 months ago
@NachyoLulz5596 Not so. We are all for real science, not the science fiction of evolution. Of course we believe God did it, but to discuss real science doesn't have to include the Bible.
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
You don't understand. I'm as religious as the next guy, but faith and science are two totally different ideas, and humanity simply cannot comprehend the depth of either. The only possible way to mix them would be to say God is in charge of evolution.
NachyoLulz5596 8 months ago
@NachyoLulz5596 I don't have a religion, but the free gift of God. How about you?
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
What my faith is has nothing to do with this conversation. Please move forward.
NachyoLulz5596 8 months ago
@NachyoLulz5596 What you believe determines where you will spend eternity after death. Even if you believe in the creation account, you could still know hell too late.
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. Galatians 6:7,8
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
good presentation however did not explain very well bird-feeder
drshamast 10 months ago
Everything you think of a bird-like, dinosaur evolved; hollow bones, feathers, oval eggs in nests, warm blood, etc, etc,
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz So what do you make of the first bird being dated to a time before the raptors which supposedly evolved into the first birds?
Evolutionist theories make more questions than answers.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne When the first reptile evoled did all the fish go away?? No. Just becasue dinosaurs with feathers were still aroung after birds evolved means nothing. But you don't understand evolution so you might think it is a problem.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Evolution suggests that birds evolved from raptors, and yet birds were around (according to evolutionist time scale which is garbage anyways..) BEFORE the raptors which supposedly took millions of years of evolution to create the first birds, you are running in circles man. You just attack creationist as not "understand(ing) evolution" and that is your whole argument against me?
I'll tell you what, EVOLUTION doesn't understand evolution, because it isn't comprehensible.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne I will say it again. If you don't understand Evolution you can't prove it wrong.
It is like saying, ''fish did not evolve into amphibians because we still have fish.''
Feathered dinosaurs did not stop existing just because eariler ones evolved into birds.
Keep trying. People have been trying to prove it wrong for 150 years.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz No you are using a completely wrong analogy.
I am saying that YOUR supposed imaginative story of evolution claims that raptors came before the birds and evolved in such a way that birds came forth from the raptors, YET we see Archaeopteryx in the "fossil record" MUCH earlier than the raptors, often evilutionists show Archaeopteryx deceivingly transitioning from raptors into birds.
Even if all the dates seemed to fit together it would still PROVE nothing, it is all imagination.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne You don't even have the fact correct. They dated a bird at an earlier date than Archaeopteryx. But that does not prove evolution wrong because it is not a ladder. We still have fish even thought some walked out of the water on to land.
Or Birds and feathered Dinosaurs evolved side by side, but still from a common ancestor. Many things have evolved to fly by different means. Feathers might be a common result of scale mutations.
The theory get better as more facts are found
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz No the theory gets more upset the more facts are found, soft tissue in a 65 million year old bone, get real!
Assumption after assumption, and yet they are seeing their assumptions proven wrong all the time, you can really put faith in that? Best of luck to you then, you have stronger faith than I do in God it seems, a blind faith I could not have.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne ''Assumption after assumption'' Something always claimed but never shown. Just one assumption please.
They did not find soft tissue. The fossil was soaked in strong acid for weeks to take away the rock. Stop lying.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Excuse me but veins are soft tissue. Mary acknowledged that they found soft tissue, are you ill?
Here are some assumptions that cannot be proven using science which evolution bases the whole of their beliefs on:
1. Radioactive decay rates are consistent through all of Earth's history and no changes in the Earth (e.g. a catastrophic flood) have influenced these currently observed rates.
2. Fossils found procreated.
3. There is no spiritual realm. (Big assumption!)
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne 1. The laws of nature do not change. Uniformitarianism is true or nothing would make sense. Science could not be done if everything changed daily.
2. Don't understand, fossils are dead, they don't procreate.
3. Science does not use the supernatural, it changes no experiment. See #1
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz To list all the assumptions would take pages and pages, why don't you actually look into it for yourself and stop ASSUMING that there is no evidence which contradicts evolutionary theory such as trees which run through multiple layers of strata and indicate the strata do not take millions of years to form, or soft tissue that didn't decay in supposed millions of years (impossible).
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne Wow, trees go through multiple layers that were laid down quickly and didn't take millions of years. No shit. And that proves layers can be laid down quickly. Correct, some layer like the ones at Mt. St Helens were laid down quickly. Exactly like Geologists would expect. What was your point?
gregrutz 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne For the real story about the 'soft tissue'' watch watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz
Neither of you seem to get it. Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur. Yes it was feathered,but it shares many characteristics with reptiles as well such as teeth,a long bony tail,and three claws protruding from its hands. It was more of a "missing link" than a bird. The same applies to the former "bird" Anchiornis as it was another sort of halfway point between birds and dinosaurs. It would be several million years before the first TRUE birds would evolve;AFTER the first known raptor Utahraptor
NachyoLulz5596 8 months ago
I don't like this video.. It's irritating me.. I'm strong in my dinosaur beliefs and he's going against a lot of it.. BIRDS EVOLVED FROM DINOSAURS
th33n3r 1 year ago
I made it to 15:39 of this lecture and had to stop because there is just so much misinformation in it. This person is either a bold face liar or he does not know the first thing about the fossils he is talking about. Either way, nothing he says should be taken seriously.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
You're really kind of an abusive sort, aren't you ?
greginLA1 2 years ago
Abusive? I do not understand why you would call me that.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
The taxonomical definition of a bird includes traits from Theropod dinosaurs. Air field bones is one of those features and it is shared with all Saurischian dinosaurs. In addition, the brain is much the same as Theropods.
I do not see the point of this lecture about Archaeopteryx so far, I do not know any paleontologists that thinks it was not a bird, they just accept that it is also a Theropod like any bird.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago 2
@jebus6kryst Archaeopteryx has teeth, true Birds don't have teeth. But they carry the genes to make them. Think.
gregrutz 9 months ago
9:35 WHAT? Did this moron just say that dinosaurs were not around in the Triassic? The first dinosaurs show up in the Triassic. It is moments like this that I wonder if he is just simply ignorant (then why is he giving a lecture as if he knew something) or just simply lying.
Many dinosaurs that are bird like predate Archaeopteryx, such as Anchiornis. The order of the fossils you presented does not help. I wonder again, are you just ignorant of the fossil record or are you willfully lying?
jebus6kryst 2 years ago 2
Yes, birds evolved from dinosaurs, which are why they still are dinosaurs. Just like humans are still apes.
Not true, there are many other types of dinosaurs that walked on two legs that were not Theropod dinosaurs, such as many Ornithischian (which include Hadrosaurs a.k.a. duck-billed) dinosaurs.
Theropod feet, for the most part are identical to most modern birds.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
"devolved"
That is a non-word. Evolution doesn't have any goal and all changes are shaped by selective pressures, with no "back" processes.
8DX 2 years ago
Dr Marc Surtees gave a good presentation here debunking the dino-bird. Thanks. 5*
SounzNice 2 years ago
@SounzNice thus quetzacoatl
thoostorm4 10 months ago
@SounzNice
You don't think dinos evolved from birds?
NachyoLulz5596 8 months ago
There actually is no controversy, there is no characteristic found in birds that can't also be found in therapod dinosaurs
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@TheScienceFoundation
There is still controversy, just not a lot. People believe there were birds before raptors (their direct ancestors) because of Archaeopteryx. What people DON'T realize is that IT was a dinosaur.
NachyoLulz5596 8 months ago
@NachyoLulz5596 Archaeopteryx is classified as a bird. There's no controversy over whether birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, timeframe is subject to minor debate.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I know it is minor debate.
AS for archaeopteryx, it shares more features with dinosaurs than birds and I've seen several different sources classifying the animal as either or, though the ones that support the latter are online encyclopedias.
NachyoLulz5596 8 months ago
@NachyoLulz5596 ucmp.berkeley(.)edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
'It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird.'
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
If that link was informational, it didn't work. Could you post another?
And if that is true, why do so many sites say otherwise? I am aware of it's status as a "missing link" but even if it is accepted as a bird, than the acception is inaccurate because it in more comparable to the former.
NachyoLulz5596 8 months ago
@NachyoLulz5596 Just remove the ()
All avian traits are technically dinosaur traits as birds are part of the superorder Dinosauria, but Archaeopteryx had features which specifically distinguish birds from theropod dinosaurs, hallux and wishbone being the major two.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Thank you.
And yes, but it also has many traits distinguishing the other way, such as teeth, a long, bony tail, and three claws which protrude from the hands on the wing.
NachyoLulz5596 8 months ago
@NachyoLulz5596
And its still not working. Can I search anything on Google/Yahoo?
NachyoLulz5596 8 months ago
@NachyoLulz5596 Yeah, search for
archaopteryx berkeley
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@NachyoLulz5596 Teeth aren't a reasonable diagnostic feature, modern birds can have teeth if atavistic genes are reactivated. There are also birds that retain claws.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Yes, but so is every other therapod characteristic, despite this, the are still called birds (I know many are classified as dinosaurs, but there are Avian and nonavian dinosaurs meaning an animal CAN be both at once). I am well aware that factually, whatever the newest record is becomes fact, but science has been wrong before. This is simply what I've determined from my research.
NachyoLulz5596 8 months ago
@NachyoLulz5596 They're both in the sense that Aves as a whole is a class of Dinosauria. But just to nitpick, Archaeopteryx has more exclusively avian features.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Fair enough. I can see I'm fighting a losing battle here. I'll agree with you on a factual level, but what I've read just seem to put it closer to dinosaurs. Unfortunately, many of those are more circumstantial that absolute.
Anyway, nice talking with you. Always nice to has a legitimate debate with someone.
NachyoLulz5596 8 months ago
@NachyoLulz5596 Likewise.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
Hi DA
Thanks for the correction on the Coelurosauria. I have cross checked this and will modify my talk.
marcsurtees 3 years ago
NP...Thats very decent of you.
Unfortunately theres more errors in your talk.
- You should really completely revise your slide on dinosaur classification
- Sinosauropteryx prima is not dromaeosaurid, it's compsognathid
- Theropod feet are identical to bird feet
- Dinosauria are first recorded in triassic period and theres several taxa of dinosaurimorph,prosauropod and theropod dinosaurs knwo from that period
- Protoavis is chimeric fossil
- Protoavis specimens show no evidence of feathers
DerivedApe 3 years ago
For jebus sake! This guy can't even get the basics of dinosaurian classification right!
Tyrannosaurs belong to Coelurosauria.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
As an active Young Earth Creationist on Youtube this is very, very good! :)
Andrewkinghorn15 3 years ago
maybe similar species,but there is absolutely no proof that evolution is science im not a creationist im a shut up both of you until either side gets more than"you are just gonna have to take our word for it"for an answer.theres several sites that offer thousands of dollars that can be won by showing actual proof of evolution and another on anyone who can find where the government ratified the amendment that lets the fedaral reserve to charge an income tax its been up for years money there still
NSMDOC 3 years ago
ROFL. Why waste your time with a 41 minute video on this? Especially presented by someone who clearly struggles with the subject and brings nothing new to the "debate" (as if there really is one).
The evidence is in and we know that birds evolved from dinosaurs. There's mountains of compelling, multidisciplinary proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Indeed there is solid ground to state that birds ARE theropod dinosaurs!
Liaoxiornis 3 years ago