"Evolution" Nonsense About "Birdlike Dinosaurs"
Today's rebuttal focuses on the Darwin's deluded dogma of "Evolution" TM -- specifically as it is said to relate to a new dinosaur unearthed in China. Before we begin to analyze a few select excerpts, let's us remind "youse guys" of what you probably learned in 8th grade, but may or may not have forgotten -- namely, the classic textbook definition of the "Scientific Method."
From the Oxford Dictionary:
Scientific Method: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
The key word is "the O Word" -- OBSERVATION. Darwin's deluded devotees can scream "SCIENCE!" in your face all they want; but if a theorized phenomenon - or iron-clad-after-the-fact forensic evidence of said phenomenon - are not OBSERVABLE, then it does not meet the standards of the Scientific Method. N.O. = N.S. (Not Observable = Not Science) Learn it. Love it. Live it.--- End of discussion. --- Got it? Good.
The "O Word" is more than just synonymous with science, it IS science; and no amount of fancy math equations, artistic renderings,computer models and academic bullying can ever substitute for it.
Now that 8th Grade Science class is complete, let's "observe" what Kenneth Chang's article is claiming.
Kenneth Chang: It had feathers and a beak.
Rebuttal: How do you know for certain that this creature had feathers? Only bone and beak fragments were discovered in the rock. A platypus has a beak but no feathers. The scientists are assuming feathers, not OBSERVING.
Kenneth Chang: It was the size of a donkey, and it did not fly. It was not a bird, but a dinosaur that was a close relative of birds.
Rebuttal: How do you know that this skeletal remnant this some odd-looking creature was "a close relative of birds?" Did anyone actually OBSERVE the transition of the alleged common ancestor into this feathered and beaked dinosaur on one branch; and birds on another branch? (Answer: No) To assume so merely on the basis of a few common characteristics amounts to reckless inference based upon wild conjecture.
Kenneth Chang: In a paper published on Thursday ... a team of scientists described a fossil of Tongtianlong Limosus, a new species in a strange group of dinosaurs that lived during the final 15 million years before dinosaurs became extinct.
Rebuttal: How is it possible to chronicle events of "the final 15 million years before dinosaurs became extinct" when there was no one around to OBSERVE and document the the life and times of Tongtianlong Limosus? (Answer: It is not possible) Do these "theoretical scientists" have some sort of magic time-machine that allows them to go back and forth through the ages?
Kenneth Chang: Oviraptorosaurs are not direct ancestors of birds, but share a common theropod dinosaur ancestor with the lineage that later evolved to birds.
Rebuttal: Again, we must ask: who OBSERVED this common-ancestor to bird & dinosaur progression? (Answer: nobody)
Kenneth Chang: The features, ... for display to potential mates... "They were like advertising billboards," Dr. (Stephen) Brusatte said.
Rebuttal: So, not only does the magic crystal ball of "theoretical science" tell us that the poor beaked bloke who got stuck in the mud had "feathers" -- but we may also recklessly infer that the feathers were used to attract bird chicks. But why should we infer such a thing when only peacocks (as far as we know) showoff their plumage to attract female? Eagles don't. Pigeons don't. Ostriches don't. How does this ass-clown "Dr. Brusatte" know that our muddy Chinese friend engaged in such aviary exhibitionism?
To hell with the Scientific Method! The crackpot "theoretical scientists" (Dr. Brusatte in Image # 3) and their hired artists have got it all figured out without the need for actual OBSERVATION!
Kenneth Chang: Some features like the feathers come from the common ancestor, ...
Rebuttal: A classic logical fallacy that is often, no, always made by Darwin's deluded devotees is the prior assumption that "Evolution" TM is an established fact. All subsequent data is then interpreted to fit the pre-determined conclusion, rather than the other way around. They therefore assume that if this creature has a characteristic that is very similar to that creature, the two species must have had a "common ancestor" TM. This is like saying that an Italian sports car and a school bus must have a "common ancestor" TM because both have wheels and a transmission.
Kenneth Chang: The common ancestor had teeth, though, not beaks.
Rebuttal: And exactly how the frickety-frack do you know that? So, not only are we to believe that these "scientists" have established the existence of a "common ancestor" TM without any OBSERVABLE evidence as such; but now they claim to be able to tell us what physical characteristics that said "common ancestor" TM has or didn't have. And, not only is the transition from the "common ancestor" TM not OBSERVABLE, the fossil of what is alleged to be the "common ancestor" TM is also not OBSERVABLE.
Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes could teach these academic egg-heads a lesson in logic and sound reasoning.
Kenneth Chang: For oviraptorosaurs, the beaks were “convergent evolution,” when similar features evolve independently among different groups of animals.
Rebuttal: "Convergent Evolution," eh? Sounds like some seriously heavy "science" there. (palm to face, sighing, shaking head) --- Again, not OBSERVABLE --- Just new bullshit to prop up the old.
Kenneth Chang: One of the unknowns is what Tongtianlong and other oviraptorosaurs were eating.
Rebuttal: Aw heck! Let's just say they ate Peanut Butter & Jelly sandwiches. Why not? Everything else is made up.
Kenneth Chang: The six oviraptorosaur species discovered so far are also very different from each other, and the scientists argue that this shows rapid evolution of these dinosaurs.
Rebuttal: No, it just shows that breeds of the same species (a gene pool) can vary greatly. Just look at the differences in size, shape, fur and temperament among French Poodles, Golden Retrievers, Pit Bulls, Great Danes, German Shepherds and Chihuahuas.
Kenneth Chang: That runs counter to the assertion of some paleontologists that dinosaurs were already in decline long before they became extinct 66 million years ago, most likely from the global devastation following a large asteroid impact.
Rebuttal: How do these eggheads come up with this number of "66 million years ago" as the precise date of dino-extinction? (nice little Satanic touch with the 6-6 there) Did anyone OBSERVE the passage of "66 million" years of time? (Answer: No) -- Did anyone OBSERVE the killer asteroid, or even the hole that it would have left behind? (Answer: No)
Kenneth Chang: “One of the interesting things about these specimens that are coming out of southern China is that they show this diversity of body forms.”
Rebuttal: Yeah. So what? Dogs, cats, humans etc. also vary in body forms. And has it occurred to you geniuses that at least part of the reason for the variance could just be due to the fact that some of the fossilized specimens may have been small cubs; others were medium-sized adolescents, and still others were full grown adults?
Kenneth Chang: She was less certain about whether the rate of evolution is as fast .... because the scientists lack precise dating of the layer of rock hundreds of yards thick where the fossils have been found. “You don’t know if it’s a million years or 10 million years,”
Rebuttal: This nonsense about measuring time by correlating it to rock thickness assumes a steady rate of silt/sediment accumulation. In reality, a catastrophic flood can deposit as much sediment in a few days as normal conditions can over the course of many centuries. This magical method of time-keeping -- a work-around to circumvent the Scientific Method -- is again totally unscientific because there is no way to go back in time and OBSERVE if the wet-sediment-to-rock-time formula is accurate.
Furthermore, the bones would have dried up, turned to dust and blown away long before centuries of sediment accumulation and hardening could completely encase and petrify them. Try dumping your Thanksgiving Day turkey bones in a nearby wooded area are see how long they last before nature's elements and insects cause them to disintegrate and disappear -- months or a few years at the most!
How's the old funeral ditty go? "Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust."
Intact bones found inside of rock layers are evidence of a catastrophic, fast-acting, silt-depositing event such as a flood, volcano, landslide, tsunami, suddenly rising sea level or something else. Might that be how our Chinese "feathered" friend suddenly got stuck in the mud -- a mud which later hardened as it was soon buried under additional layers of silt?
1- Dog breeds differ greatly among themselves too. It doesn't prove that poodles "evolved" into dalmatians!
2- The "science" of rock dating is deeply flawed to begin with. Dating fossils from the erroneously-aged rocks then leads to circular reasoning.
3- Darwin's scam is thoroughly and humorously exposed in "God vs Darwin" by M S King. (here)
This cooked-up commie crap would actually be funny, were it not for the fact that millions of young malleable minds are being corrupted by the "theoretical scientists." For that reason, these diploma-decorated dorks need to be driven out of Academia and into the lunatic asylums by the thousands.
Boobus Americanus 1: I read in The New York Times Science section today about a new species of birdlike dinosaur recently discovered in China.
Boobus Americanus 2:Yes. I understand that there is an emerging consenus now among the scientific community that dinosaurs and birds shared a common ancestor.
Sugar: You frickin' birdbrain! "Consenssus" ain't science! Obsservation iss!
Editor: You tell em' sabre-toothed Sugar!
Mike King "God vs. Darwin"