Who Is Your Creator message forum

Forum: Who Is Your Creator message forum

This forum is locked and posting is not allowed

Author

Comment

View Entire Thread

Arneson

Sep 7, 2007 - 9:34AM

71.63.223.195

You better dump your cited study, because that is all they have done.

WiYC said:
"1. Yes, we know that "all had something to say about Sinosauropteryx."
However, they were smart enough to realize visual analysis does NOT qualify as conclusive evidence."

As I pointed out in the posts below, other scientists have criticized this study for being nothing more than pointing at pictures and saying, "I think these are collagenous tissue, cuz I've seen it before." Their study is far from conclusive, even though they have been quite forceful and nasty about having the final word. They seemed to miss quite a bit of analysis that they fault other scientists for.

http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/728199/
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/728213/

The point was to make two things clear. - by Arneson - Sep 7, 2007 9:42am

Amazing admission! There ARE NOT FEATHERS - YET ... Thank you! - by whoisyourcreator - Sep 7, 2007 3:03pm

Interesting standard of honesty, indeed. - by Arneson - Sep 10, 2007 10:39am

Not really. - by Arneson - Sep 10, 2007 11:07am

We don't have an answer on these structures yet, and this paper doesn't provide any. - by Arneson - Sep 7, 2007 9:51am

Do you support Feduccia's position on the integumentary structures of Longisquama? - by Arneson - Sep 5, 2007 9:49pm

Interesting diversion. Where is your scientific evidence ... or is that too much to ask for? - by whoisyourcreator - Sep 6, 2007 2:08pm

Re: Interesting diversion. Where is your scientific evidence ... or is that too much to ask for? - by Arneson - Sep 6, 2007 2:54pm

Do you understand that the burden of proof is yours? - by whoisyourcreator - Sep 6, 2007 3:27pm

This is but one study that seems to overstate its case, and not as conclusive as they would have you - by Arneson - Sep 7, 2007 8:44am

So, now your argument is based on what WASN'T found? Interesting 'evidence' - by whoisyourcreator - Sep 7, 2007 10:43am

The argument is based on what your source doesn't address. - by Arneson - Sep 7, 2007 11:32am

The study is far from conclusive. - by Arneson - Sep 7, 2007 9:28am

Now photos are evidence? The material was available for genetic testing. - by whoisyourcreator - Sep 7, 2007 10:52am

Photos referenced are from the paper you cited. - by Arneson - Sep 7, 2007 11:17am

You won't accept evolutionist's findings. So where is your conclusive evidence? - by whoisyourcreator - Sep 7, 2007 2:56pm

Thanks for repeating the quote that has already been addressed. - by Arneson - Sep 10, 2007 1:08pm

'The material was available for genetic testing.' I don't think so... - by Arneson - Sep 7, 2007 11:21am

Feduccia is an evolutionist. Why would you think we find his opinions 'compelling'? - by whoisyourcreator - Sep 6, 2007 8:38pm

Feduccia suffers from the same problem creationists do. - by Arneson - Sep 7, 2007 9:05am

You obviously didn't notice... - by Arneson - Sep 5, 2007 9:53pm

Another WiYC Blunder - by Arneson - Sep 5, 2007 4:25pm

Would you like to retract your comment? Again, where is your evidence? - by whoisyourcreator - Sep 5, 2007 6:20pm