https://creation.com/scientists-wrong
"Actually, a major reason most scientists believe in evolution is that most scientists believe in evolution! This is a type of ‘confirmation bias’: the alleged scientific consensus was reached by counting heads, which themselves reached their conclusion by counting heads. If most of them were asked for actual evidence, they would likely give very weak answers outside their field of expertise.
For example, one of the world’s leading experts on fossil birds—and a staunch critic of the dino-to-bird dogma, is Dr Alan Feduccia, Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina. He remains an evolutionist, however, yet when challenged, his prime ‘proof’ was corn changing into corn!"
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sho...hp/id/1275
"On a night when I should not have taken a study break from finals (11/29/04), I heard Dr. Alan Feduccia (evolutionary biologist and chair of the Biology Dept at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) speak at the San Diego Natural History Museum on the origin of birds. Feduccia is a committed evolutionist but he is well known because of his rare views among evolutionist paleontologists that birds did not evolve from theropod dinosaurs. Some of his views are unorthodox, some are not. But none of his views were without evidence to bolster his claims. The lecture was well-attended as the San Diego Natural History Museum has had an extensive fossil exhibit on the origin of birds for some time. I was invited to attend by a friend who is former IDEA Club leader who currently works at the museum.
To begin, I'd like to highlight some of the main points he made during his talk:
[*]Archaeopteryx is a true bird.
[*]"Dinofuzz" is nothing more than collagenic fibers found on many other fossils.
[*]Today's highly touted "Feathered Dinosaurs" are a myth: some fossils (e.g. Caudipteryx) have flight-feathers but they aren't really dinos--they are secondarily flightless birds
[*]Birds have digits 2-3-4, and theropods have digits 1-2-3. This is powerful evidence that birds couldn't have evolved from theropod dinos.
[*]Also, the theropod --> bird hypothesis requires that birds evolved flight from the ground-up. If Caudipteryx has feathers but not for flight, Feduccia finds this explanation quite tenuous. Put simply, ground-up proponents say feathers were pre-adapted for flight but evolved originally for insulation. This is silly because feathers are perfectly suited for flight, and very energetically costly to produce. If insulation was all that was needed, hair would have done the job just fine and would NOT have been nearly so costly. It strains credibility to say feathers evolved for insulation.
[*]Feduccia prefers Microraptor as an ancestor of birds because he likes the trees-down hypothesis, not the ground-up hypothesis.
[*]If birds didn't come from theropods, this does leave a rather large time-gap where there is essentially no fossil documentation of exactly what sort of dinos or other reptiles from which birds would have evolved.
[*](I personally hope people might consider "Option C,"--that perhaps birds did not evolve from dinosaurs or other reptiles.) "
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...085411.htm
""The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of ‘dinosaurian science’ as evidence against the theory of evolution," he said. "To paraphrase one such individual, ‘This isn’t science . . . This is comic relief.’"
(This post was last modified: 2018-05-10, 03:00 PM by Brian.)
"Actually, a major reason most scientists believe in evolution is that most scientists believe in evolution! This is a type of ‘confirmation bias’: the alleged scientific consensus was reached by counting heads, which themselves reached their conclusion by counting heads. If most of them were asked for actual evidence, they would likely give very weak answers outside their field of expertise.
For example, one of the world’s leading experts on fossil birds—and a staunch critic of the dino-to-bird dogma, is Dr Alan Feduccia, Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina. He remains an evolutionist, however, yet when challenged, his prime ‘proof’ was corn changing into corn!"
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sho...hp/id/1275
"On a night when I should not have taken a study break from finals (11/29/04), I heard Dr. Alan Feduccia (evolutionary biologist and chair of the Biology Dept at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) speak at the San Diego Natural History Museum on the origin of birds. Feduccia is a committed evolutionist but he is well known because of his rare views among evolutionist paleontologists that birds did not evolve from theropod dinosaurs. Some of his views are unorthodox, some are not. But none of his views were without evidence to bolster his claims. The lecture was well-attended as the San Diego Natural History Museum has had an extensive fossil exhibit on the origin of birds for some time. I was invited to attend by a friend who is former IDEA Club leader who currently works at the museum.
To begin, I'd like to highlight some of the main points he made during his talk:
[*]Archaeopteryx is a true bird.
[*]"Dinofuzz" is nothing more than collagenic fibers found on many other fossils.
[*]Today's highly touted "Feathered Dinosaurs" are a myth: some fossils (e.g. Caudipteryx) have flight-feathers but they aren't really dinos--they are secondarily flightless birds
[*]Birds have digits 2-3-4, and theropods have digits 1-2-3. This is powerful evidence that birds couldn't have evolved from theropod dinos.
[*]Also, the theropod --> bird hypothesis requires that birds evolved flight from the ground-up. If Caudipteryx has feathers but not for flight, Feduccia finds this explanation quite tenuous. Put simply, ground-up proponents say feathers were pre-adapted for flight but evolved originally for insulation. This is silly because feathers are perfectly suited for flight, and very energetically costly to produce. If insulation was all that was needed, hair would have done the job just fine and would NOT have been nearly so costly. It strains credibility to say feathers evolved for insulation.
[*]Feduccia prefers Microraptor as an ancestor of birds because he likes the trees-down hypothesis, not the ground-up hypothesis.
[*]If birds didn't come from theropods, this does leave a rather large time-gap where there is essentially no fossil documentation of exactly what sort of dinos or other reptiles from which birds would have evolved.
[*](I personally hope people might consider "Option C,"--that perhaps birds did not evolve from dinosaurs or other reptiles.) "
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...085411.htm
""The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of ‘dinosaurian science’ as evidence against the theory of evolution," he said. "To paraphrase one such individual, ‘This isn’t science . . . This is comic relief.’"
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)
