Wednesday, 28 September 2011

More on 'dinosaur feathers' scam


The following extracts (unedited) from Answers in Genesis item on the 'dinosaur feathers' story confirms that, as John Humphyrs didnlt ask but as i suspected, there was no evidence to allow investigators to conclude that any of the 'fuzzy inclusions' found in Canadian fossil amber were associated with dinosaurs. All pure speculation and bluster.

This is no surprise to anyone familiar with the way that Darwinian science works difrerently from, er, science.

with science, you begin qith a question and them nmove forward through testable observations to a tentative conclusion.

with Darwinian science, you begin with a non-negotiable conclusion and then look for evidence that might fit. Evidence that refutes the conclusion is rejected, other evidence is overemphasised and exaggerated to fit the conclusion.  Read the full item and judge for yourself.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"The amber tid-bits, most less than a centimeter across, are leftovers from the “Late Cretaceous” Grassy Lake coal bed in Alberta, Canada. Paleontology graduate student1 Ryan McKellar surveyed 4000 pieces of amber and found eleven with feathery, hairy, or fuzzy inclusions.....

Significantly, despite the alleged resemblance to “protofeathers,” none of the amber specimens contain any other portions of their original owners. Therefore it is impossible to be sure what animals any specimens belonged to. The article in Science states, “Neither avian nor dinosaurian skeletal material has been found in direct association with amber at the Grassy Lake locality. . . . There is currently no way to refer the feathers in amber with certainty to either birds or the rare small theropods from the area.”7 Yale evolutionary ornithologist Richard Prum notes, “The lack of any other remains in the amber—a distinctive bit of bone, say, or a shred of skin—leaves open the possibility that the structures aren't associated with dinosaurs at all.”9''




'leaves open the possibility........

shouldn't the discussion have begun by stating that there was no evidence that the feathers were from any kind of animal other than those in whom feathers are invariably and exclusively seen-birds?

this is what evolutionists call 'mountains of overwhelming evidence.'

2 comments:

  1. My word but you're a clueless Creationist!

    E.D.: "'leaves open the possibility........

    shouldn't the discussion have begun by stating that there was no evidence that the feathers were from any kind of animal other than those in whom feathers are invariably and exclusively seen-birds?"


    There is evidence in the comparison with other known feathered dinosaurs, just not direct evidence of dino remains still attached to these particular feathers.

    Not being 100% sure doesn't mean 'no evidence' Elwin.

    If I can examine evidence and determine there is a 95% probability of A and a 5% probability of B, then the possibility of B is still open. That doesn't mean there is no evidence for A, or no reason to tentatively conclude A is the answer.

    Major logic FAIL for you Elwin. Keep that Creationist ignorance train rolling!

    ReplyDelete
  2. So what dinosaurs were feathered? Where is the fossil evidence for these?

    ReplyDelete

feel free to comment, good manners and lucidity are appreciated.