Yes but he is also arguing that is all you’re doing too, but of course the basis for that argument is still just his opinion.
No. You still don’t understand.
Let me show you a couple of pictures of leaves
And there are more varieties, even now let alone historically
Richard
Furthermore, some nonavian theropod dinosaurs even had quill knobs on their forearms.
Tthe feathers do not actually look like feathers. They are solid.
Richard
No more solid than leaves which also leave impressions in the fossil record.
1 Like
What would it take for you to accept that non-avian dinosaurs had feathers?
1 Like
As I pointed out previously, we can even tell the color of the microraptor’s feather color. New Dinosaur Research: Microraptor’s Feather Color Revealed
The feather color was iridescent black, just like a crow’s feathers. Do you really think that every time a microraptor died, a crow of the same size came from the future and managed to die right on top of it in the same pose?
1 Like
Well, there is this:
Source paper:
A Feathered Dinosaur Tail with Primitive Plumage Trapped in Mid-Cretaceous Amber
6 Likes
Probably the same sort of evidence as you would need to be convinced that you are being led up the garden path with false interpretations of fossils etc.
I am sorry. These pictures are not new to me. I have seen them and more before. I am not quite so ignorant as you would believe, neither am I coming from complete ignorance.
Everyone is being bombarded by the assumptions of Evolutionary theory and it is almost impossible to separate the truth from fiction. It is the theory of the age and there is no rival, at least in science, to it. But, like the flat earth of old, popularity and consensus do not make it true. There is almost certainly some truth in it, but like all good reading, the trick is to understand when the writing becomes speculative at best, and downright inventive otherwise.
Richard
I wonder why you cannot realize you are using an argument from incredulity. But then, neither did I until I learned of neutral drift, the neutral theory of evolution and population genetics, not to mention objective evidence of God’s sovereign providence over mutations in DNA.
I am fascinated by optical illusions. You know what makes them? The brain’s function to try and understand and make sense of what it sees. It will call on its experiences and convert lines and shadows into images that it knows. So when you look at an image and are told what to see, you will see it, and probably not look any further or try for another interpretation. Evolution relies on the interpretation of two or three-dimensional images (impressions, fossils etc) Who is to say that any of it is actually correct? Popularity? Consensus? What we want to see? What fits our theories?
You see feathers? I wonder what you would see if the notion of feathers had been dismissed as impossible? Would you still see feathers? or would you try and find an alternative?
I am not claiming any higher knowledge, or even saying that it can’t be feathers. I am just suggesting that your certainty is misplaced. It fits the theory you have been told, but the theory came first, not the interpretation of the image.
People will always see and prove what they want to see and prove.
You never know, that might even include my view of God?
Richard
Actually, you are being buffaloed by your own illusions. They do not overturn the real science. Do you know what population genetics is?
Do I care?
If I am delusioned, it is a very good illusion and one I have perfected and reinforced for over 60 years.
I have a basic knowledge of genetics, heredity, etc. Population genetics is almost certainly a macro version of these things ( I can’t be bothered to look it up this time.) Whatever it is I do not see any connection to the conversations currently running other than another spurious tangent of scientific theory.
Richard
That sounds like an excuse, not an argument.
Will you kindly stop being obtuse, Either make a valid point or get out of here I am tired of this fencing. If this latest theory has some bearing on Evolution then spell it out. if it is just another stab at my view of God then forget it I am not interested.
I told you that I was not interested in arguing with you. What part of that did you not understand. If you are a Christian then we are on the same side, if not then spell it out and I will take more interest.
Richard
Reinforced I buy, not the former, however. And an argument from age is another logical fallacy similar to an appeal to authority, not to mention that our ages are at least comparable, and I might be your senior. 
Then don’t. BioLogos was founded for Christians to talk to Christians about science and faith. Maybe that is something else you do not understand.
I would recommend your reading The Language of God by the founder of BioLogos, Francis Collins.
1 Like
God does not violate the laws of nature that he put into place at the beginning unless he needs to or wants to to accomplish his purposes. He did not need to poof any species into existence because he achieved it quite successfully using evolution.
These are NOT leaves! You believe they are leaves because of what you’ve been programmed to believe.
3 Likes
Oh I wish there were laughing emojis on this site. I would be rolling on the floor.
Richard