[VadeRetro]

This has feathers.

It is absolutely, positively a dinosaur. It is absolutely, postively, not a bird. You and Gish need another "disproof of transitional fossils."

[VadeRetro]

It is absolutely, positively a dinosaur. It is absolutely, postively, not a bird.

But it has a very similar skeleton to good old Archy. Very similar indeed!

[VadeRetro]

Compare the unquestioned dinosaur in 502 to the "unquestioned" bird in 417. How did that happen?

[gore3000]

It is absolutely, positively a dinosaur. It is absolutely, postively, not a bird.

But does it have mammary glands? Maybe it's a mammal? Does it have the special lungs of birds? Does it lay eggs? What are the differences in the DNA of this example and those of dinosaurs and those of modern birds?

Of course you cannot answer such questions and no scientist can either because a bunch of bones cannot answer the real important questions about any organism.

[Con X-Poser]

<< It is absolutely, positively a dinosaur. It is absolutely, postively, not a bird. You and Gish need another "disproof of transitional fossils." >>

You are going to bank on another find from the Liaoning Province of *atheistic* Communist China? What are you gonna do when they find this one is another fake? You don't think an atheistic, communistic country might have an ulterior motive to try to eradicate God, do you?

I should ask my friend Wang Tsai what Liaoning means in English. No doubt it either means "Piltdown" or "Haeckel".

But, let's play along (wink, wink). What if it is a dinosaur? What if it did have feathers? What says a dinosaur couldn't have feathers? Feathers have uses other than flying - check out the ostrich next time you visit your zoo.

This does nothing to prove a transitional creature and less to prove evolution.