And my closing point is - if you have managed to convince a single person with your arguments (you know, that dinosaurs changing to birds is not a species jump and all that waffle) then that person is now stupider for it. Good night and God Bless.
Nevermind, Fan, you can ask one of your numerous Stanford-educated offspring to help you get over this ghaping
You still dont get it do you? Dinosaurs per se didnt turn into birds. So T rex didnt shrink, grow wings and a beak and take off The few scientists who argue this, do so on the basis of wings and feathered bodies found from certain periods so if anything all it means is that in the dinosaur period there were birds, or birdlike dinosaurs that have evolved into the birds we see today As I said though that isnt the majority view My argument is there has been no species jumping, as in cat become dog etc. no one has said anything to prove otherwise toodles
whats your problem with that? As I have said I dont actually accept Micks argument and most scientists today differ also however there were winged dinosuars, see Pterosaurs A lot of people would say pterodactyl, although experts wouldnt necessarily use that word
Most scientists? What does that mean? So a physics lecturer doesn't believe birds are descended from dinosaurs? It's such a ridiculous thing to say but that's no surprise coming from you. Or are you talking about paleontologists? Please do show us this evidence that you have that most scientists don't believe it.
Dave as you may have noticed I havent responded to you on this thread, but will do so now There has been nothing said on here that has proven what was being claimed re evolution See SCIENCE has chopped and changed in the last 50 years and taken certain stances which have zero evidence I follow a book of SIGNS, which contains 6000 ayahs. 1000 of those are about the major signs. re the moon and its light. The sun etc written 1400 years ago and still correct and never changed science has without a shadow of a doubt proved those signs in the last 30 odd years In the same scenario (accepting what I said is correct for a second) what would you believe?
well lets just take a quote from the link Mick gave earlier re origin of birds Only a few scientists still debate the dinosaurian origin of birds, suggesting descent from other types of archosaurian reptiles and that isnt My source, but the source given by my 'opponent' They even use the word 'scientist' and not paleontolgist
Even if I could be arsed to muster a constructed response, It wouldn't be for a Baron Von Munchausen-esque mess like you
Just found this some scientists, most notably Gregory S. Paul, conclude that dinosaurs such as the dromaeosaurs may have evolved from birds so I may have been right they may have been descendENTS. (descendents is also a correct spelling) do I win? and if so what?
