No, Birds Did NOT Evolve From Dinosaurs

[@michaelmouse5375]

Birds are dinosaurs, just stop it already, how does he have PhD 🤦

[@VanyaD]

Birds are absolutely not dinosaurs.

[@l.m.892]

@@VanyaD Evolutionists/atheists have to try and justify their belief to escape insanity. They usually do this by attacking others rather than supplying rational evidence for what they believe. Did you ever notice that birds have 4 claws? Theropod dinosaurs have 3. Theropod claws are for running. Bird claws are for holding on to branches and prey.

[@TheAmazingJimmy]

He has a PhD because he's smarter than you.

[@michaelmouse5375]

Birds are dinosaurs, just stop it already

[@l.m.892]

Trolls are dinosaurs too. All of the evidence suggests it.

[@spatrk6634]

some funny looking birds with boney tails grasping claws and full set of sharp teeth.

[@TheAmazingJimmy]

We have those today.

[@spatrk6634]

@@TheAmazingJimmy sure we do. lol... like velociraptor.

[@mateuszgalla7677]

Omówiona powyżej kwestia metabolizmu wiąże się ściśle z budową układu oddechowego. Jednakże budujące go tkanki nie zachowują się w materiale kopalnym. Tymczasem u współcześnie żyjących ptaków obserwuje się charakterystyczną budowę płuc, zaopatrzonych w worki powietrzne. Jednak worki takie rzadko wnikają do kości. Pomimo tego udało się je znaleźć u allozauroida, którego Paul Sereno i współpracownicy nazwali Aerosteon. U gadziomiednicznych stwierdzono już wcześniej istnienie worków szyjnych, które jednak nie biorą udział w oddychaniu, u Aerosteon jednak stwierdzono istnienie worków komunikujących się z płucami, leżących zarówno wewnątrz klatki piersiowej, jak i poza nią (nawet w kości biodrowej). Odkrycie, że niektóre nieptasie teropody miały worki powietrzne połączone z płucami wskazuje, że ich płuca przypominały płuca współczesnych ptaków - sztywne i przytwierdzone do grzbietowej ściany klatki piersiowej[140]. Autorzy ci opisali również przebieg ewolucji worków powietrznych. W pierwszej fazie, najpóźniej na początku triasu późnego, pojawiły się worki szyjne, które następnie, w okresie jury, zróżnicowały się. Powstały worki związane z układem oddechowym. Przed końcem jury u maniraptorów wyewoluowała prymitywna pompa mostkowo-żebrowa, zaś pod koniec tego okresu można już mówić o zaawansowanej pompie. Powstanie worków wiązać się mogło nie tylko ze sprawniejszym oddychaniem, ale także z równowagą lokomotoryczną i termoregulacją[140]. Wczesne ptasie układy oddechowe były zdolne utrzymać wyższe tempo metabolizmu niż w przypadku ssaków podobnej wielkości i budowa taka utrzymała się. Poza zapewnianiem wydajnego dopływu tlenu szybki przepływ powietrza stanowił efektywny sposób chłodzenia ciała, kluczowy dla stworzeń aktywnych, ale zbyt dużych, by pozbyć się całego nadmiaru ciepła przez skórę[141].

[@rodericgurrola1745]

Obviously your very talented and very smart but just cause an animal has a similar feature to another doesn’t prove they are related. Not to mention when mentioned the evolving part I just want to say that the mechanisms for evolution or engines if you want are very bad. One of the mechanisms the main are mutations now we can still observe them today so in reality we can see if mutations can give rise to new genetic code for a new feature to a creature. But we see the exact opposite it does two things takes away information or messes it up. You may argue about beneficial mutations are good evidence but if you look at it closer it really isn’t. It’s a gain some you lose some if you don’t understand stand what I mean here’s an example. A beetle is born without wings but he lives in a windy environment if he had wings and tris to fly he will get blown away. So with his loss he got a chance to survive but still he lost his wings. Even as I say this I don’t expect you to not lose faith in what you believe in but I’m not here to argue with you I’m not here to do a debate I’m just trying to share good news that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your and my sin and everybody else. One of the speakers at Answers in Genesis said why they put up the ark encounter it’s not to win a debate it’s to defend the Bible as the word of God and proclaim Jesus Christ. And one more thing what’s the point of you defending or trying to win the argument against a Christian I mean really in an atheists perspective it’s pointless life is pointless we have no meaning or purpose someone might say I give myself a purpose, maybe but whatever you do means nothing. That’s where I disagree . God gave you a purpose. Your not a smart hairless ape you are a smart human being made in the image of God who loves you. You can ask Jesus to forgive you for the wrongs things in your life and accept His free gift but then again it’s your choice not his.

[@Dinosaurthingything]

@@rodericgurrola1745 just because they have similar features doesn’t mean they were both designed, either. We can draw lines between similarities, the fossil record, embryonic development, and genetics to come to the same conclusion, all supporting each other, that birds are a population of dinosaurs. What have you other than basic observation (not actually the greatest tool with something this deep, and even that is on the side of evolution), and your religious text? I’m not saying that to discourage you, but rather to provoke thought.

[@Dinosaurthingything]

Tell you what, if I made a video tackling your comments inaccuracies, would you give it a watch? I’d rather do that than sit here and type it out like this.

[@Peeter42]

yeah you copied that from wikipedia😂

[@martanieradka4675]

Przekonałeś mnie Velcro i czepliwy łopian to kuzyni ewolucyjni 😂

[@michi9816]

Modern birds descended from a group of two-legged dinosaurs known as theropods, whose members include the towering Tyrannosaurus rex and the smaller velociraptors. The theropods most closely related to avians generally weighed between 100 and 500 pounds - giants compared to most modern birds - and they had large snouts, big teeth, and not much between the ears. A velociraptor, for example, had a skull like a coyote’s and a brain roughly the size of a pigeon’s. This guy talks mostly nonsense.

[@michi9816]

@@ottovonskidmark629 maybe, but there is no doubt, birds developed from dinosaurs. there is enough evidence. e.g. dinosaurs with feathers.

[@michi9816]

@@ottovonskidmark629 I am fine with bird evolved from dinosaurs. it seems to me, you have some knowledge regarding this issue. congratulations

[@l.m.892]

"Modern birds descended from a group of two-legged dinosaurs known as theropods, whose members include the towering Tyrannosaurus rex" Evolutionists say the T. Rex turned into a chicken. The T. Rex weighed several tons. Chickens weigh several pounds. Maybe we should believe you as much as we should believe the "scientists".

[@michi9816]

@@l.m.892 if you prefer to stay ignorant…

[@homershimshon4172]

What is this guy doing? Saying birds are not dinosaurs is like saying humans are not primates. Him comparing a bird to a T-rex is silly. They're two different species. Much like a whale and a porpoise. Two different species in the same clade. Of course the skeletons will be different. So he isn't making any valid points.

[@yrosenstein]

Noticed the similarity in femur of the dinosaurs and birds? This guy only strengthens the connection between dinosaurs and birds. Evolution works.

[@fearlesskingdom4051]

Humans aren’t primates though 🤦🏿‍♂️

[@drakestallworth3621]

@@fearlesskingdom4051oh hey it’s you again. Yes we are. Get over yourself

[@daverobson3084]

Feathers are definitely NOT unique to birds. Neither is how they breath. We have several fossils of ( non avian) dinosaurs with feathers. Fossil evidence shows that most, if not all, types of dinosaurs had respiratory systems a lot like, if not identical to , birds. Also, sure there are birds that can operate at 37,000 feet, but I'm pretty sure an ostrich would not do well at that altitude. Mountain goats are quit comfortable at altitudes much higher than humans can safely exist, that does not make them not a mammal. Since different types of birds walk in different ways( and some walk much more like other theropod dinosaurs than they do like other birds), the statement about birds moving in " A unique way" is kind of nonsense. A emu does not move anything like a robin, who does not move anything like a penguin. Nice try.

[@Timelord42192]

Not every fiber associated with an animal is a feather. The only dinosaurs with 100% confirmed feathers are the Pennaraptorans (velociraptor, oviraptor, troodon, etc.) and Alverezsaurids. In fact, the majority of avian traits found among dinosaurs exist only within these groups. Aside from feathers, these dinosaurs are also unique in possessing avian brains (many even more bird-like than Archaeopteryx), avian respiratory structures (which are definitely not universal among dinosaurs), as well as several of the classically bird-like traits mentioned in the video (e.g. rear-facing pubis). They also lay uniquely ornithoid eggs, which, unlike the eggs of other theropods, possess traits that are otherwise known ONLY from birds (e.g. pigmentation and an extra calcium layer in the eggshell). With this in mind, it’s difficult to see why these animals are considered “non-avian” in the first place, and without them, almost all of the shared characteristics between birds and dinosaurs vanish.

[@daverobson3084]

@@Timelord42192 "Not every fiber associated with an animal is a feather. The only dinosaurs with 100% confirmed feathers are the Pennaraptorans (velociraptor, oviraptor, troodon, etc.) and Alverezsaurids." The first statement is quite true. The second? Well. 100% confirmation of anything is very rare. Anyway, you are showing entire families of dinosaurs, with dozens of known genera in each family. "Aside from feathers, these dinosaurs are also unique in possessing avian brains (many even more bird-like than Archaeopteryx), avian respiratory structures (which are definitely not universal among dinosaurs)," I believe that ALL known dinosaur fossils with evidence of the animals respiratory system shows the same basic respiratory system as birds. i believe you are just wrong here. "With this in mind, it’s difficult to see why these animals are considered “non-avian” in the first place, and without them, almost all of the shared characteristics between birds and dinosaurs vanish." So, your argument actually comes down to " this is why not all DINOSAURS are BIRDS" not " this is why Birds are not Dinosaurs". And, it is actually not true. Birds share the same temporal finestra as dinosaurs( and other sauropsids). They share a fourth trochantor. Birds and dinosaurs share a perforated acetabulum. Birds have a furcula ( wishbone) as do theropods, the lineage of dinosaurs it is believed that birds derive from . You don't show where a group belongs in taxonomy by saying " these things are different from other animals" only. You have to show where they are the same as other animal groups, and birds just have a lot in common with dinosaurs, bot, in general, and specifically to theropods. Uhm Okay. Was anyone claiming that all dinosaurs are birds???

[@Timelord42192]

@@daverobson3084 Not sure what multiple families/genera has to do with it. We have confirmed evidence of pennaceous feathers from dromaeosaurids, troodontids, oviraptorosaurs, and alvarezsaurids. All other claims of feathers are either based on sketchy evidence or represent quill/fur-like structures that have no resemblance to what we would recognize as feathers today. Could they be some ancient, extinct variety of feather? Sure. Could they just as easily be something entirely different? At the moment, yes. Ornithischians didn’t have avian respiratory systems, but we’re talking about theropods, in which case the situation is . . . messier than I even realized when I initially commented. Evidence of intrusive air sacs is well known across Theropoda, which would suggest avian respiration. At the same time, we have preserved organs from several compsognathid genera that suggest a more crocodilian respiratory style. Some researchers have challenged this interpretation, but the conversation has been very back-and-forth. Like I said - kind of a mess. In my initial comment, however, I was specifically thinking of the avian style uncinate processes on the ribs of pennaraptorans. These are now thought to have played some role in the respiration of Mesozoic birds (those with gastralia at least) and possibly indicate a similar breathing style in pennaraptorans. Other theropods do not have these structures. Admittedly, my comment about “shared characteristics” vanishing was messy and should have been worded better. Dinosaurs are, inarguably, very bird-like reptiles, and the theropods at least do share some traits with birds - the furcula being a good example. At the same time, there are far more avian traits that are very different from anything seen in non-maniraptoran theropods. Those are the traits that I meant. As for the others that you mentioned, the fourth trochanter is common to all archosaurs, dinosaurian or not, and the temporal fenestrae are diagnostic of Diapsida as a whole. Even the open acetabulum is not as unique to dinosaurs as once thought (Terrestrisuchus also had one, and Effigia’s was partly open). Yes, these are “shared characteristics,” but they are not diagnostic of either birds or dinosaurs. I’m getting a bit long-winded here, so I’ll put my response to your last point in the reply to your other comment on classification.

[@daverobson3084]

@@Timelord42192 "Yes, these are “shared characteristics,” but they are not diagnostic of either birds or dinosaurs." But they are. Nothing classified as a dinosaur does not have these traits. The fact that some animals NOT CLASSIFIED as dinosaurs does not mean that animals with them are not dinosaurs( though it may mean that other animals with them that are not presently classified as dinosaurs should be ). You are arguing that birds are not( or " may not be") dinosaurs because birds have some features that dinosaurs( some dinosaurs actually) do not seem to have possesses/ are not 100% confirmed to have possessed". Well then. Humans are not mammals as many mammals lack many human characteristics. Baleen whales maybe are not cetaceans as not all cetaceans have baleen )( and the blow holes tend to be different . Sizes larger in many species). Bats are certainly not mammals. Look how different they are than other mammals. But wait. That is not how classifications are made so, those arguments do not work. Same for yours. Doesn't work. " Some dinosaurs were more similar to birds than others, so birds were not dinosaurs" really doesn't work as an argument for most involved in the discussion.

[@mixtheory1412]

@@Timelord42192basically all dinosaurs have the possibility of having feathered now, their relatives the pterosaurs had protofeathers, both sides of the dinosaur family tree had feathers, suggesting that all dinosaurs have the possibility of having feathers, which includes the tall bois, tyrant, ground hawks, clawz, beeg tortle, steg, Yi, even the one in my profile pic

[@Tom-in5xg]

I asked someone this once .... If dinosaurs evolved into birds we see today then where did the first birds that lived with the dinosaurs evolved from

[@daverobson3084]

Other, earlier dinosaurs. That's how evolution works. Humans are primates, and evolved from earlier primates, yet , there are other primates still around . Much like how you descended from your great grand parents( say, named Smith), and so did your cousins. You are all "Smiths", and descended from earlier "Smiths".

[@rodericgurrola1745]

Good point

[@shadowaccount8620]

Do you even know how to write a sentence in English

[@ThePotatoSapien]

They evolved from maniraptoran theropods. All the major dinosaur groups had evolved by the Middle Jurassic.

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@ThePotatoSapien for that to occur you would need 2 eggs of the same species. one organism by itself cannot propagate (if different enough) to constitute a founder

[@MrSaundersc]

All birds are dinosaurs, not all dinosaurs are birds, showing non-avian dinosaurs and pointing out their non-avian features is not demonstrating birds are not dinosaurs.

[@rodericgurrola1745]

But wait he showed therapods which a lot of evolutionists believe is the ancestors for all birds he explained pretty well why dinosaurs are not birds. I know one may argue that we have evidence today that a lot of birds have features that look like dinosaur features. But he is explaining and showing people the huge differences. Cause we always see the artist representation of feathered dinosaurs. And scientists always saying it’s a proven fact. I remember when a atheist told me that you will believe anything the Bible tells you. I said yea sure it’s Gods word. But don’t you do the same thing? When I say the Bible says. You say the scientists say. Anyways what I’m saying is that what you’re saying and doing is pointless in an atheist perspective you have no meaning no purpose your just a hairless ape. Now I don’t believe that I believe your a special creation made by God who made you in his image. And he came down to save us by becoming man that man was Jesus Christ the son of God who died on the cross for your sins and mine and everybody else’s. He wants to be with you but hey it’s your choice not his.

[@86lanzo]

Well said...and pointing at birds that have wildly different features to dinosaurs and adding millions of years doesn't prove Birds came from dinosaurs.

[@Itsmezim4]

@@86lanzo lol, do you think that's what paleontologist do all day? It's not, why are you such a silly little boy?

[@Dinosaurthingything]

@@86lanzo right, we point at a myriad of characteristics unique to Archosauria, and dinosauria. And then we look at those similarities in birds, and, given that the evidence, regardless of if you accept it, does show the earth is a few billion years old, and life has been around for a good while, we can extrapolate that birds, an animal that regardless of evolving or not, for within a group, evolved from other members of that group.

[@Dinosaurthingything]

@@86lanzo heck, even if they didn’t evolve, they’d be as much within dinosauria as a whale is within mammalia. It’s a grouping, that they have the traits of. Regardless of evolution or not.

[@jamesw6371]

Birds aren't real.

[@idonisthelover]

I don’t think so either.

[@Luigi051]

They're government spy drones

[@InqvisitorMagnvs]

As the good rabbi says, if it's not in the Holy Torah, it's not real.

[@drakestallworth3621]

@@idonisthelover i know this is a joke but pls confirm with me

[@l.m.892]

"Birds aren't real." They inherited that from their ancestors.

[@JimmyK53]

That's funny, none of these aspects are things actually used to classify what a dinosaur is. It's almost like you are trying to mislead people

[@afa78djd]

Right at the beginning, the list of features he shows have all been found in dinosaur fossils 😂. What we like to believe are Avian features, were actually dinosaur features all along. Birds were already around when the most common giant dinosaurs were, they didn't evolve from dinosaurs because they ARE dinosaurs, just a small branch of many.

[@joshuacarrero5360]

If they are dinosaurs like you foolishly claim, then stop calling them birds. Please seek help.

[@anarchorepublican5954]

...📚🧐???..but isn't the (original) definition of "Dinosaur" related to how these particular group of Reptiles (huge and small bipedal or quadripedal) hips walking upright? ...🦖🦕...and that is clearly different from how Birds walk? a. Small mammals were already common around when the most common giant dinosaurs were, they didn't evolve from dinosaurs NOR ARE they dinosaurs,🐀🐿🦔 b. So-called "modern" reptilian lizards, crocodiles, turtles, snakes, and tuataras were already common long before the most common giant dinosaur. came on the scene , they didn't evolve from dinosaurs NOR ARE they dinosaurs...(Note: there is absolutely nothing "Modern" about "Modern Reptiles"...Dinosaurs were the more modern models...not "Permian" turtles or crocodiles c. Even ancient Pterodactyls were around when the most common giant dinosaurs were, they didn't evolve from dinosaurs NOR ARE they dinosaurs, SO WHY? this insistence that: "..they (the BIRDS) ARE dinosaurs, just a small branch of many." 🦕🦖= 🐓🦃🕊🦉🦆🦅🦆🐥🐦🐧

[@kathleennorton2228]

If you didn't know better you'd think that they were doing a parody. Birds are dinosaurs. What a joke. They are plum out of their blooming minds.

[@InqvisitorMagnvs]

This Genesis guy is a parody of Abrahamic Yahweh cultists? Hard to tell parody from reality when billions worldwide believe this kind of rubbish.

[@l.m.892]

"They are plum out of their blooming minds." Or you could say "plume out" :)

[@adelinomorte7421]

***you know nothing about it, but I will go even further you have to learn on how to read the Bible not only the numbers.***

[@douglaidlaw740]

If birds are not dinosaurs, that kills your whole theory. Facts are VERY inconvenient things. Flying dinosaurs did not have feathers, their wings were more like those of a bat. Possums don't fly; they glide. Horses don't have "reverse" knees; their lower legs are two fingers. Amazing!

[@Dinosaurthingything]

I’m sorry, what are we considering flying dinosaurs here? Yi Qi? Pterosaurs, whilst also being archosaurs, and Avemetatarsalians (archosaurs, but more closely related to birds than crocodilians), aren’t dinosaurs.

[@mixtheory1412]

So… you stupid? Pterosaurs aren’t dinosaurs, and true flying dinosaurs had feathers, we know that because of impressions in the fossils, plus, horses have one toe on all fours

[@TheClimbingBronyOldColt]

Doug, there ain't such a thing, as a "flying" dinosaur, dinosaurs walked on land, but I guess according to your fallacious evolution, plesiosaurs is a "swimming" dinosaur.

[@Dinosaurthingything]

@@TheClimbingBronyOldColt nope, plesiosaurs don’t fit the criteria to be a dinosaur. Birds are dinosaurs in the same way that whales are mammals and dinosaurs are reptiles. You never stop being descended from your ancestors. Also Doug is on your side of the discussion, however it appears he believes that pterosaurs are dinosaurs, and that they had bat like wings, which neither are accurate. The bat like wing statement is closer but severely lacking nonetheless.

[@TheClimbingBronyOldColt]

​@@Dinosaurthingything Dinosaur is defined as walking on land, which means you cant call something that flies or swims, for a dinosaur. Birds from dinosaurs, would indicate increasing complexity, and gaining and adding of information. Problem is, that scientific research shows, increasing complexity doesn't happen, and contrary to what evolutionists believe, genetic information is lost, and damaged, over time. Increase time, the more information is lost and damaged. Evolutionism is a belief, a religion without God, a god, or any deity, where man puts himself first and above all things. What more, since evolutionism belief requires that information stays, and is added/gained, then it can never go away, and so since it cannot, then the information for dinosaurs, should already be present in birds, and cloning dinosaurs from birds should then be possible. Problem is, that information ain't there, birds are birds. Metabolism in dinosaurs (reptiles cold blooded) is quite different from birds (bird warm blooded). For one to "evolve" from one kind to another, very drastic changes need to take place, changes, that despite what science show, would require adding genetic information that becomes increasingly complex. Go ahead and look at DNA, genes, once a gene is lost/gone from a group/kind, there is no way to get it back by natural means. We lose genetic information, it gets damaged, we do not gain it, and nature destroys. Now, you phrase yourself in such a way, that you believe yourself to be right, problem is that your view have no standard for what is right and wrong, correct and incorrect, false and true, good and bad. A standard, to be called a standard, must be fixed, remain unchanged. Objective morality, objective logic, objective truth, requires a standard, to be moral, to be logical, to be true. With no objective morality (which naturalism materialistic view makes impossible to exist in that view of atheistic evolutionists), then whatever is attempted "argued", is simply nothing more than subjective opinions, that cannot be regarded as objectively true, or moral. What came first, chicken or the egg? What came first, the hard shell or the soft inside? What came first, the stomach or the acid to break up food in the stomach? What came first of the eye, the retina, the eye lense, the codons? Also, how does a single cell, increase in complexity and gain information, when science shows that increasing complexity and gaining of information is not possible? That idea, is not scientific, and so is against science. If you think that one side has more evidence, you are wrong, both sides have access to same evidence and so has equal evidence, what differs is interpretation of that evidence. Since evolutionist are opposed to God creating, and states universe as self creating, at no point can an evolutionist infer or give credit to God, or a conscious creator of any kind, from outside of time and space, apart from material matter which physical things consists of. The further you try and reason backwards, the more gaps form, and you cannot go beyond point 0 where time starts breaking down. Do you believe yourself smarter, more intelligent, and higher intellectually, than believers? That not believing in God, makes you smarter, and everyone not thinking and believing the same way as you, is dumber? That is fallacious and illogical thinking. If you don't believe in God, in creator of any kind, then what stands left is naturalism as the only view, and in that, nothing matters and life is ultimately meaningless, no reason to have care or compassion for anyone or anything, no reason to try and preserve anything or anyone, when all just is and just happens, and pointless trying to persuade or correct anyone as if free will and choice is a thing when that view holds free will and choice as non-existent. Let me guess, you think I was indoctrinated and brainwashed into believing in God, which you assume without evidence, for no more than disagreeing with unscientific macro-evolution. I was an atheist, and I did not go to church, I sought after God, after realizing my worldview to be fallacious, illogical. So no I was not indoctrinated. But you know where indoctrination takes place? In schools! No, really, you sit in a classroom, are not to question what the teacher says, but accept everything the person sitting behind a desk teaches as if it is true.And this repeats, day after day, hour after hour, and is very much indoctrination. If you think that God, is a single person, a man in the sky, then you have not understood The Bible. Contrary to what many atheists and evolutionists claim, many don't get/understand Scripture. If viewing God's Word as just any other book, then it should be read, understood, and comprehended, as any other book. For instance, reading L.O.T.R., makes it clear that Sauron is the bad guy, the evil villain, you don't read L.O.T.R. for then to conclude The Fellowship to be bad and immoral for opposing the rise of Sauron. And neither does one read Harry Potter, for then to see Voldemort as good and Harry as bad. Yet, that is exactly what many atheists do, read, and then impose their own meanings unto Scripture, their own self made interpretations that is opposite of what is clearly understood when plainly read. Atheists claim God is an immoral monster, when they have no morality in their view to speak of. God exists, God created, gives meaning to all things in existence, reason to care and have compassion for others, reason to preserve, all things matter, and life is meaningful. And, since God created, He wrote His Law on our hearts, so that even though disbelieving, they still understand morals. This is what atheists need to understand, but fails to understand. In the view of atheism, there is no morality, and what they claim as such, is in their view, nothing more than opinions that no one are required to view or take as credible or valid. View is what's stated, yet they continue to misinterpret (some might misrepresent) and thinks view somehow means you personally as an individual. Which is why communication often fails, when two parts aren't speaking the same English. Theists hold to God's Word that remains unchanged, and atheists/evolutionists holds to man's word that keeps changing, the starting point and foundation for both, are different. If on top of that, you're just gonna dismiss whatever is said and explain to you, after having asked and requested it, then any interaction you then have, is just gonna go one way, into conflict. Are you listening, or are you just gonna disregard what I just wrote, simply because you think the words of a theist/believer is of no value or meaning and so is to be ignored? Which is very much the attitude of atheists who resorts to ad hominems.

[@ottovonskidmark629]

I am really sick of hearing that birds are Dinosaurs, NOOOOO they are not. At last, a really great good video telling us the truth .

[@jaybanks2709]

Yeah it's just dumb to call a reptile and fowl

[@indorfan]

They literally are tho? Saying birds aren't dinosaurs is the equivalent of saying dogs aren't mammals

[@indorfan]

@@ottovonskidmark629 birds are apart of the dinosauria Claude, AKA they are dinosaurs

[@anarchorepublican5954]

@@indorfan .......📚🧐???...Sorry "Claude" but, All that "clade" crap is just tautology disguised as taxonomy...just another postmodern blurring of set scientific and linguistic boundaries... and what's the actual anatomical evidence to justify it?...Merely because in overheated and over-enthusiastic Evo-imaginations, a plucked 🦃Turkey🍗 slightly resembles a T-Rex🦖? You don't get to win the argument simply by re-defining clear distinctions out of existence..... .but rather, isn't the (original) definition of "Dinosaur" related to this particular group of Reptiles walk upright with relation to its hips and shoulders, whether huge, and small; bipedal or quadripedal ...🦖🦕...and that is clearly different from how Birds walk? a. Small mammals were already common around when the most common giant dinosaurs were, they didn't evolve from dinosaurs NOR ARE they dinosaurs,🐹🐭🐀🐿🦔🦡🦦 b. So-called "modern" reptilian lizards, crocodiles, turtles, snakes, and tuataras were already ancient long before the most common giant dinosaurs came on the scene, and we still have them all today..they didn't evolve from dinosaurs NOR ARE they dinosaurs...🐢🐊🦎🐍(Note: there is absolutely nothing "Modern" about "Modern Reptiles"...Dinosaurs were the more modern models...not "Permian" turtles or crocodiles) c. Even ancient Pterodactyls were around when the most common giant dinosaurs were, they didn't evolve from dinosaurs NOR ARE they dinosaurs, SO WHY? this insistence that: "..they (the BIRDS) ARE dinosaurs, just a small branch of many." 🦕🦖=🦢 🐓🦃🕊🦉🦆🦅🦆🦩🐥🐦🐧🦤

[@shadowaccount8620]

@ottovonskidmark629 how to say you don't know Jack about birds/ dinosaurs

[@easypeezy03]

58:40 this guy literally just proved a paint against the point he was trying to make 😂

[@rodericgurrola1745]

I like this it’s really good just one thing the dromeosaur he shows I’ve looked at the fossil compared with a velociraptor. And I think the one he shows may not actually be in the same kind. True I know it has a sickle claw. But so does microrapter and it’s not related to dromeosaurs. And one more thing there is lack of evidence for feathers on dromeosaurs. But still this man did a amazing job. God bless Answers in Genesis.

[@Firedrake-SP]

Can you please give me all the details on why Microraptor is not related to dromaeosaurs?

[@ThePotatoSapien]

Microraptor… is a dromaeosaur…. If you want to make an argument, say that troodontids and archaeopteryx aren’t dromaeosaurs. They both have smaller sickle claws, but they’re not dromaeosaurs. Turns out, having a sickle claw is pretty common in the maniraptorans, a group that INCLUDES BIRDS.

[@rodericgurrola1745]

@@ThePotatoSapien But you just made a good argument that microwraptor isn’t a dromeosaurs just a bird.

[@rodericgurrola1745]

@@ThePotatoSapien Ohh and just to let you know so I don’t waste your time. If you try to respond to what I said I won’t respond back. It’s not because I hate or think your a sinner because in reality we all are me too. Only Jesus made a way for people like us to save us. All we have to do is confess the things we did were wrong. And to accept him as our Lord and Savior. But hey that’s your choice not his. One more thing before I leave why do want to try and disprove what I believe in I mean in an atheist perspective it’s pointless and meaningless and there’s no point life has no point we are just accidents accidents with no meaning. But in my view we do have a purpose God gave us one.

[@fishyjoes4615]

@@rodericgurrola1745 why do you think you know what all atheist think or believe the arrogance of religious people thinking they know what an atheists thinks and believes in is soo baffling to me

[@deecee849]

Birds are warm blooded

[@drakestallworth3621]

Some non-avian dinosaurs have evidence of endothermy.

[@spatrk6634]

considering that dinosaur fossils were found on arctic and Antarctica, its clear indication that at least some dinosaurs were not cold blooded

[@l.m.892]

@@spatrk6634 Will you cite the source of your "information"?

[@spatrk6634]

@@l.m.892 internet

[@l.m.892]

@@spatrk6634 I see. You want to talk but you don't want to talk.

[@gabrielgiovanniuniverse1501]

Finally someone with a brain! Im not alone!!!

[@greyideasthetheliopurodon4640]

This guy brain fell out. He was being dishonest the entire time

[@GTSE2005]

Brainless people think alike

[@Immolator772]

Birds literally have similar skeleton like the Dinosaurs, even their organs are on same places. There were even dinosaurs with feathers. How are they not birds? Also where is the proof that Dinosaurs are extinct, and not evolved into birds?

[@thehumblepotatoreborn9313]

How in the blue f%ck would you know where a dinosaur's organs were stored?

[@Immolator772]

@@thehumblepotatoreborn9313 usually where their bellies are, they don't store their organs in the tails.

[@thehumblepotatoreborn9313]

@@Immolator772 You could say that for almost any group of animals, though.

[@Immolator772]

@@thehumblepotatoreborn9313 by that logic, how can you tell dinosaurs existed?

[@thehumblepotatoreborn9313]

@@Immolator772 cos you can see their fossilized skeletons? I'm not sure what your point is?

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

It's amazing how much science you have faith that you can debunk when you are indoctrinated into one of these magical religious ideologies. Weird since usually by the fifth grade you know just about all you really need to know about a religion but have not even begun to scratch the surface of The knowledge science has helped humanity gain over the last five hundred years

[@us3rG]

Evolution is a religion You do t have to believe in creation to know it's a man made make believe Remember science is a tool and can be used by the good and the evil Evolution is currently the only religion people are not allowed to question or challenge Our human nature doesn't change Our human nature didn't evolve from something else and it will naver evolve to something else. This is observable in all eight billion of us and in all recorded history. Our knowledge, our bodies, our environment changes but what makes us humans has always been the same and it will forever be the same Again evolution is a religion

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

@@us3rG Well lucky for you if evolution is a religion it doesn't have a psychopathic narcissist heading it that threatens eternal damnation for non belief in evolution.

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

@@us3rG Oh, and your argument from ignorance certainly has not debunked evolution as a scientific theory and the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet

[@us3rG]

@@RobertSmith-gx3mi human nature is the reason Evolutionist stopped classing black people as less evolved Evolutionist don't even want you to remember you have a human nature, they're busy trying to convince you and lil kids how all are animals There is no science behind evolution theory, it even started before science actually could prove anything, now they're just using science to push off their bs Again you don't have to believe in creation to see how evolution is a man made make believe fantasy ...you just want it to be true by any means...not really a rational move.

[@us3rG]

@@RobertSmith-gx3mi Human nature is the reason Evolutionist stopped classing black as less evolved. Evolution has no science behind it, you just want it to be true, you choose to believe blindly

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

Yep - yes they did. And you need to answer the question, why don't we find fossils of modern birds in the same layers as dinosaurs?

[@daverobson3084]

Yes. By all criteria for assigning there place in the Animal Kingdom, birds are dinosaurs.

[@Timelord42192]

. . . IF you use cladistic taxonomy and assume that all living things MUST be united by common ancestry. Otherwise, there are plenty of reasons to consider them separate.

[@daverobson3084]

@@Timelord42192 If you are not using cladistics OR taxonomy( they are two similar, but different classification systems) please explain what you ARE using as a classification system??? Also, what are your " plenty of reasons"?

[@Timelord42192]

@@daverobson3084 Taxonomy is the overall science of classification. It is not a method (cladistics is one of many taxonomic methods used in history). Therefore, if I am classifying organisms at all, I am by definition using (or practicing) taxonomy. In your other comment, you said this: “You don't show where a group belongs in taxonomy by saying ‘these things are different from other animals’ only. You have to show where they are the same as other animal groups” Yes, if you are specifically using cladistics. Cladistics attempts to classify organisms based on their phylogeny. The problem is that you cannot observe an organism’s phylogeny (it happened in the past). The best you can do is determine which organisms are most similar and assume that they therefore share common ancestry (a bit oversimplified, but that’s the gist of it). This may be plausible on a small scale, but cladistics takes this assumption and tries to apply it to all of life kind! Birds may be very different from dinosaurs, but they MUST have evolved from something. Dinosaurs, despite their differences, are the next most bird-like animal, thus birds must have evolved from dinosaurs and, therefore, are dinosaurs . . . . . IF universal common descent is true. If it is not (and there isn’t really a way to prove that it is), then all of cladistic taxonomy is thrown into question because, at some point, its underlying premise is being taken to absurd extremes. After all, who’s to say that birds evolved from anything? When birds and dinosaurs are compared using methods that do not try to force an unknowable history onto the data, we find that they are separated by significant morphological gaps (with most maniraptorans favoring the birds). I have described many of the reasons for this in other comments.

[@daverobson3084]

@@Timelord42192 My question stands. What classification system do YOU use then? We know that DNa is a reveals decent . We use it all of the time to determine ancestry of humans( and horses, and dogs, and cattle, ect) . Why would we assume that it does not apply to life as a whole. Also. We see that evolution HAS occurred. The fossil record attests to it. Its a bit like saying " We know we can build a hill in a few days of piling up rocks and dirt, but why would we assume we can build a mountain in a few years of the same?' Well, because it makes logical sense. The extension makes sense as the most logical explanation for what we see in reality( Fossils showing a gradient of relatively simple life in the distant past, becoming more and more complex , and more an more similar to modern life, through time). We see no evidence pointing to another explanation for the appearance of progression in life throughout the fossil record. The fact that genetics bears this out( that all life seems to be connected as DNa is universal and we can find common DNa in everything, with life that is morphologically similar almost always being the most generically similar) supports the theory of common decent( along with homology , biogeography, embryology) we have multiple lines of research supporting common decent.

[@daverobson3084]

@@Timelord42192 "When birds and dinosaurs are compared using methods that do not try to force an unknowable history onto the data, we find that they are separated by significant morphological gaps (with most maniraptorans favoring the birds). I have described many of the reasons for this in other comments." Morphological standards for determining that a life from is a "dinosaur" include 1-Perforate acetabulum 2-Number of sacral vetebrea 3-Positioning/number of temporal finestra 4-Having a 4th trochanter Where do birds not meet the criteria for being CLASSIFIED as dinosaurs( forgetting decent for the time being)? Also, again, we have significant evidence pointing to feathers in non maniraptoran, and even non theropod , dinosaurs.

[@melodykubiak5850]

I tried to sign up for the newsletter but I don't want to give out my phone number, which is required. That's disappointing.

[@shadowaccount8620]

You're better off learning actual science than a book written by shepherders

[@melodykubiak5850]

@@shadowaccount8620 ~ I'm puzzled by your response. I don't understand why you'd care what I choose to learn from. That's up to me. I don't care what you choose to learn from. That's your choice. So I don't think it's necessary for you to make a comment to me.

[@shadowaccount8620]

@@melodykubiak5850 fair. But I don't like people falling for pseudoscience

[@melodykubiak5850]

@@shadowaccount8620 I understand that. You're entitled to your opinion, but it is not necessary to tell me what I'd be better off doing.

[@us3rG]

​@shadowaccount8620the fact that you think like this shows you are ignorant to the world around you

[@fearlesskingdom4051]

Science “Dinosaurs went extinct 65M years ago” Also science “Birds evolved from dinosaurs” ?????🤔????🤨????🧐????🤷🏿‍♂️

[@drakestallworth3621]

That’s called reading the wrong sources

[@fearlesskingdom4051]

@@drakestallworth3621 Scientific theory is theory all the same.

[@drakestallworth3621]

@@fearlesskingdom4051 and theory isnt just an educated guess. Evolution is both a fact and a theory bc it’s both observable and an explanation for various observations, but it’s all rooted in concrete evidence. U don’t understand but to refute it, you have to have concrete evidence yourself. And “concrete” doesn’t mean watching these kinds of vídeos. If there is no p-value involved, then sit down

[@fearlesskingdom4051]

@@drakestallworth3621 You need to fix your grammar before you tell anyone to “sit down”. A theory is an assumed hypothesis I said what I said🤷🏿‍♂️

[@drakestallworth3621]

@@fearlesskingdom4051 and it’s wrong what u said. I can tell u dont know what ur talking abt bc u act like “Science” is some ivory tower community, snd that everything you read online that claims to be science is from the same people

[@klouis1886]

Why do Christians spend so much time on this stuff? Why is it so important for the faith?

[@CEDtalks85]

It's incremental. Hear me out: 1. The bible says 6 days of creation. Man says nope, millions of years. 2. The bible says a global flood. Man says, nope, maybe it was local. 3. The bible says God sent fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah. Man says, nope, no evidence. Never happened. 4. The bible says Jonah got swallowed by a big fish. Man says nope, impossible. Never happened. Now at this point, none of this can really harm your salvation. But if the bible is always wrong when man says no, when does the bible start being right. Lets get into some hard-hitting stuff. 1. The bible says Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was crucified, dead, and buried. Rose 3 days later. Man says nope, these are all impossible. The other 4, lets say you believe man. But the moment you stop believing that: - Jesus wasn't born of a virgin - Jesus isn't the Messiah, thus not being truly God. _ Jesus didn't atone for sin and didn't rise No matter what you believe of the other 4, messing off with that bottom 1, you don't trust that one, you aren't a Christian and cannot be saved without trusting that 1 in true. You went from flirting with distrusting the bible in the first 4 to being a legit pagan. Because if you only believe what man says is true, you're eternally screwed. So basically Christians believe that if Jesus is the Messiah and is God, if He determines something to be so, then it's true.

[@guga-mo6mm]

@@CEDtalks85 as aves são dinossauros

[@zubilize]

Because faith is not wanting to know what the truth is.

[@lizd2943]

It's important to get people not to trust in anyone but their pastors and creationist leaders.

[@colbywidener7092]

​@zubilize Bear and Dogs are not the same animal. They are completely different. Sharks and dolphins are not the same. Sharks are a type of fish, dolphins are mammals. Yet in some ways they have similar characteristics. Saying that Birds and Dinosaurs are the same due to similar features is poor reasoning. Just because animals have some similar features dosent mean they are related. Pigs skin and human skin is similar. Yet people are not pigs. Unless you are a slob, then maybe that applies. The point being is that similar features dosent mean they are related. Cats and dogs both have fur, tails and similar ears. Dosent mean they are related. It means that their is a creator who decided to give some animals similar features that would benefit them in their place environment. Dosent mean evolution is true. In fact if evolution was true then there would be millions of missing links in the fossil record. Half-hybrid species of two different genus of animals. Like a rat and bird combined. Or a alligator and a ancient deer combined. In evolutionnary theory according to Darwin himself, he expected to find missing links everywhere but in reality he couldn't find any. You'd have to have a missing link for every creature on the face of the earth. In countless stages of evolution. In today's world can you find an instance of standard textbook evolution taking place today? (And dont reply with genetic tampering in cell labs. Thats human interference and manipulation. That dosent happen in the wild.) If it were true and we came from primates, then the primate world today would continue to evolve. Evolution by its definition dosent end. Human beings would continue to evolve. Our body would continue to change over the thousands of years humans existed. It would not just stop at Neanderthals. It wouldn't stop with us. Yet evolution in the sense you and I am referring to, is not progressing. In fact, all species on earth seemed to have STOPPED evolving. But Darwinism and evolutionnary theory doesn't have a stopping point. Evolution dosent have a mind. It dosent have the ability to determine when to stop or which animals evolve. In fact every single Dinosaur on the planet would have to evolve at exactly the RIGHT time at exactly the RIGHT stage everywhere for with those right conditions maintained everywhere all at the same time. ALL the TIME. In order to produce offspring the looks like birds, Over a period time. You see time dosent even help the case of evolution because you're still dealing with what is genetically impossible. You'd have to account for the hatched ones and the ones yet to be hatched. You have to account for the MILLIONS of species at different ages. But they'd ALL have to be at the right age at the RIGHT time everywhere on the planet in order for the gene pool and reproductive organs to be at exactly the prime condition to mate to create a new species. Which is impossible. That doesn't happen today. You don't find hybrid birds everywhere. Even if Utharaptors had feathers, or Bambi Raptor could perch in trees, dosent mean they are birds. It means that there is a Creator who chose to give them those features to suit their environment. Again, dolphins and mako sharks are not related in the slightest. Yet they both have Dorsal fins, similar tails, Sharp teeth, both can swim very fast and damage would be caused to both if they were beached on dry land. Yet they are not the same animal at all. So something is not adding up. Try getting a bird and a lizard to produce an offspring. Impossible. Try getting a human and a great dane to produce an offspring. It's genetically Impossible. Sharks and dolphins cannot breed. It's impossible. Different animal species can not produce a new species. Only canines can produce canines. And birds with birds. Only feline can produce felines. Only humans can produce humans. Evolution is not in practice today. Because evolution is a false narrative. There are no missing links. If there were, that's like over 3 billion various hybrid missing links that you'd have to find. That's like 3 billion Dinosaur missing link hybrid birds you'd have to find. You end up withmore missing links than the end result.

[@joshuacarrero5360]

Dinosaurs are NOT birds 🙄 I laugh at people who actually buy into this garbage. Common sense is a rarity nowadays I swear.

[@chciken]

Some dinosaurs are birds.

[@AndreaHernandez-7722]

Yes ,can be believe it some rarely

[@rickmarti77]

Please direct me to the passage in the Bible that mentions dinosaurs. Thank you.

[@Gossland52]

The writers of the Bible would not have even known that word yet. The name or term, ‘Dinosaur’ was not created until the 1800’s. And if the Bible doesn’t mention something does that make it false? Some say Job describes these creatures.

[@iamshredder3587]

Maybe ditch the cringe sarcastic tone and the whole thinking your smart thing which just makes you look a fool and you might actually learn something true for a change.

[@rickmarti77]

@@iamshredder3587 Chris G wrote a cogent intelligent response to my comment. He used good grammar. You not so much. I love learning. The more I learn the more I realize what I don't know. I go to many sources for my information, not just one 6.000 year old book.

[@Gossland52]

@@rickmarti77 Thank you for the kind words. I have so much to learn as well. I really enjoy when someone or something can change my perspective on how I view my reality. I’m on a quest for truth just like you and I’m with you on using other sources than the 66 books the Bible provides. “All truth is ultimately God’s truth, even if found in the books of pagan authors, and we should seize it and use it without hesitation.” -Augustine of Hippo

[@rickmarti77]

@@Gossland52 Eons of time and the vastness of the universe are larger than the human mind is capable of comprehending The Christian God is too small. He (not she) has the human emotions of anger and jealousy .Great quote. Thanks

[@bn444]

In summary, "Birds aren't dinosaurs, because birds look pretty and I don't know what knees are."

[@Dinosaurthingything]

Wonderful summary.

[@Timelord42192]

Pretty sure you're the one who doesn't know what a knee is here. Dr. Menton pointed out several significant ways in which bird anatomy differs from that of theropod dinosaurs. Many of those traits are completely unknown among dinosaurs outside of the maniraptorans (who, as pointed out near the end, are likely birds themselves). The fact that you apparently couldn't understand all the big, complicated words doesn't mean that his argument was "birds are pretty."

[@Dinosaurthingything]

@@Timelord42192 hold on, I’m gonna Rewatch this video, and do some research. Not that hard to prove you wrong.

[@Dinosaurthingything]

@@Timelord42192 also Maniraptorans are definitely not all birds themselves. Therizinosaurs? Large Dromaeosaurs? Honestly there’s a lot more than that that are undoubtedly not birds.

[@Timelord42192]

@@Dinosaurthingything (Sorry in advance for the length - trying to be thorough) Therizinosaurs, despite being maniraptorans, are definitely not birds. I agree with that for all sorts of reasons. As for the larger dromaeosaurs: They had elongated forelimbs with avian wrists that likely supported wings, fused caudal vertebrae that functioned as a pygostyle, ossified uncinate processes on their ribs, suggesting avian respiration in contrast to other coelurosaurs (compsognathids, and likely others, had crocodile-like lungs), and a reversed pubis, similar to that of birds like Archaeopteryx. They also possessed large brains that lacked the narrow, “peaked” morphology characteristic of most theropods (including Therizinosaurs), in favor of the relatively compact, “globular” design seen in birds, complete with reduced olfactory lobes, enlarged optic lobes, and EQ values that overlap that of Archaeopteryx. Finally, the structure of their eggs (and therefore, reproductive systems) were far more similar to those of ratites than to non-maniraptoran theropods and contained pigments known only from birds. If these traits appeared gradually, one after the other, along the Theropod family tree, then it could be argued that they are also dinosaurian traits, but they don’t. Instead, they appear all together quite suddenly around Pennaraptora (although Alvarezsaurids share many of these traits as well - thus I said “maniraptorans”).

[@paulhaynes3688]

Let’s forget science, and believe in a book of talking animals, people walking on water, sticks turning into snakes, wizards witches, demons , burning bushes , Mr Noah’s boat, dinosaurs coexisting with man , rising from the dead , food falling from the sky , many absurd stories from the man made book about a man made god

[@jaybanks2709]

Nah science has proven all of those hey here a better idea let's believe earth is round we are billions of years old and the first group of people to be this advance this far forget the the word of God and the forbidden sciences all common sense and believe we came from nothing

[@us3rG]

Evolution is man made , it man using science to confuse people like you Evolution is a religion, evolution began before science could do anything about it. They came up with the theory and they're determined to make it seem real which it is not

[@Ahturos]

I only schemed throught but to me all he is explaining is how Dinosaurs indeed did evolve into birds so is he proving the genesis groups that it is true?

[@colbywidener7092]

Bear and Dogs are not the same animal. They are completely different. Sharks and dolphins are not the same. Sharks are a type of fish, dolphins are mammals. Yet in some ways they have similar characteristics. Saying that Birds and Dinosaurs are the same due to similar features is poor reasoning. Just because animals have some similar features dosent mean they are related. Pigs skin and human skin is similar. Yet people are not pigs. Unless you are a slob, then maybe that applies. The point being is that similar features dosent mean they are related. Cats and dogs both have fur, tails and similar ears. Dosent mean they are related. It means that their is a Creator God who decided to give some animals similar features that would benefit them in their place environment. Dosent mean evolution is true. In fact if evolution was true then there would be millions of missing links in the fossil record. Half-hybrid species of two different genus of animals. Like a rat and bird combined. Or a alligator and a ancient deer combined. In Darwins theory according to Darwin himself, he expected to find missing links everywhere but in reality he couldn't find any. You'd have to have a missing link for every creature on the face of the earth. In countless stages of evolution. In today's world can you find an instance of standard textbook evolution taking place today? (And dont reply with genetic tampering in cell labs. Thats human interference and manipulation. That dosent happen in the wild.) If it were true and we came from primates, then the primate world today would continue to evolve. Evolution by its definition dosent end. Human beings would continue to evolve. Our body would continue to change over the thousands of years humans existed. It would not just stop at Neanderthals. It wouldn't stop with us. Yet evolution in the sense that most refer too and I am referring to, is not progressing. And just so we are clear. Microevolution does exist. Yes you heard me correct. But Microevolution is not MACROevolution which is the main stream subject taught in colleges everywhere. Microevolution is how the the pug dog in your house came from the wolf. Why? Because Wolves and Dogs are canines. Its the same way tiger and lions can breed. And produce ligers. That the extent of it. Because with Macroevolution, you are changing a triceratops into a rhino. A Tyrannosaur into a chicken. A Reptile into an avian. Pterosaurs and flying reptiles are not the ancestors of birds either. They are simply flying reptiles. Like the modern lizard Draco maculatus. Darwins Evolution doesn't happen. Because thats like changing a dog into a cat. Its impossible. In fact, all species on earth seemed to have STOPPED evolving. But Darwinism and evolutionary theory doesn't have a stopping point. Evolution doesn't have a mind. It doesn't have the ability to determine when to stop or which animals evolve. It also is unable to determine when to start things. In fact every single Dinosaur on the planet would have to evolve at exactly the RIGHT time at exactly the RIGHT stage everywhere for with those right conditions maintained everywhere all at the same time. ALL the TIME. In order to produce offspring the looks like birds, Over a period time. You see time dosent even help the case of evolution because you're still dealing with what is genetically impossible. You'd have to account for the hatched ones and the ones yet to be hatched. You have to account for the MILLIONS of species at different ages. But they'd ALL have to be at the right age at the RIGHT time everywhere on the planet in order for the gene pool and reproductive organs to be at exactly the prime condition to mate to create a new species. Which is impossible. That doesn't happen today. You don't find hybrid birds everywhere. Even if Utharaptors had feathers, or Bambi Raptor could perch in trees, dosent mean they are birds. It means that there is a Creator who chose to give them those features to suit their environment. Again, dolphins and mako sharks are not related in the slightest. Yet they both have Dorsal fins, similar tails, Sharp teeth, both can swim very fast and damage would be caused to both if they were beached on dry land. Yet they are not the same animal at all. So something is not adding up. Try getting a bird and a lizard to produce an offspring. Impossible. Try getting a human and a great dane to produce an offspring. It's genetically Impossible. Sharks and dolphins cannot breed. It's impossible. Different animal species can not produce a new species. Only canines can produce canines. And birds with birds. Only feline can produce felines. Only humans can produce humans. Evolution is not in practice today. Because evolution is a false narrative. There are no missing links. If there were, that's like over 3 billion various hybrid missing links that you'd have to find. That's like 3 billion Dinosaur missing link hybrid birds you'd have to find. You end up with more missing links than the end result. Ultimately people believe the false narrative even when the evidence is given to them. Because if things evolved and there is no Creator than that means their is no moral accountability. No consequences for wrong doing. Things are not evil. Its just nature. That means you can Rape and pillage and do whatever you want and its all apart of your "animal instinct" If you beleive the narrative of evolution then you beleive Adolf Hitler is right. Which by the way Darwins "origin of species" book was adored by Hitler which gave him the Moral "Go-Ahead" to murderer countless lives because they were "lesser than less on the scale of nature" Evolution is false narrative. You ask why Do Christians focus on combating evolution? Because the Bible commands us to expose the Unfruitful Works of Darkness. Evolution is a narrative that is easily accepted by those that are deceived because it gives them a narrative in which God doesnt punish evil. Satan is an intelligent liar.

[@quack2thesequel]

Exactly, similar loiking things don't indicate a heritage, or sameness, sayings birds are dinosaurs is almost gaslighting.

[@robertjackson1813]

​@@quack2thesequel than why are whales mammals

[@robertjackson1813]

This is all the same cut and pasted creationists malarkey yall have been saying this for decades with no change or new discoveries, yall sound like zealots! This isn't scientific it's antiscience. YOU are spreading lies and evil

[@Vegetanimation]

I want you to know that the following quote isn't just a meme. It's how I GENUINELY feel. Honest to God, I've met some truly ignorant people. I live in Florida. But you... "What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

[@mixtheory1412]

Wow all the thing “unique” about birds are all also present in dinosaurs! What a coincidence!

[@shadowaccount8620]

If I'm not mistaken, the T. Rex has a wish bone

[@mixtheory1412]

@@shadowaccount8620 yes… sorta

[@HolySpiritFire3]

​@@shadowaccount8620 Did T-rex have wings?

[@shadowaccount8620]

@Stephen Gaddis unlikely due to them not needing them due to their environment of Hell's Creek being similar to the Florida everglades. So they wouldn't be very feathered, unlike its relative Yutyrannus. Who needed them because their environment being more cold. But we do know that Dromaeosuarids have feathers and wing feathers because a velociraptor had marking on their bone where the flight feathers would be. So the T. Rex may not wings, the velociraptor did have wings but couldn't fly. But if you wanted a dinosaur that could fly, microraptor would do it.

[@andrewmorse2181]

@@shadowaccount8620 The environment argument always was weird to me. If their environment was what drove changes in evolution, why would it cause different changes? There are multiple species and families living in the exact same environment, yet that exact same environment causes entirely different changes. This theory is having to bend farther and farther backwards to make it work.

[@Dandelion0962]

And dermatologist say, don’t squeeze the foreign pollutant out your skin follicle, pay to have us laser zap it, to allow the infectious scar to increase larger for credited and branded logo markers

[@scapepain5344]

Short answer - No 🦖🦕

[@rickmarti77]

yes

[@iamshredder3587]

And to further elaborate on that answer - Duh! 🤪😂 Crazy that they have to even answer that. It seems like lately the stupider the lie the more willing the world is to believe it! 🤪

[@bn444]

​@@iamshredder3587 Nah. It just looks like Creationism is more common because it can now be broadcast globally over the internet. But so is proper science, so the lies of Creationists are definitely on the decline; especially since they can easily be proven false by people who actually understand the anatomy of avian dinosaurs. I mean, take this video for example. The man never even defines what a dinosaur is, or what its characteristics are supposed to be. But somehow he thinks he can prove that birds aren't in that undefined category. By his method, there are no dinosaurs at all; or birds, mammals, fish, cats, etc. etc.. Not every container can hold water, and using whatever object is at hand dooms you to having a wet floor and a dry mouth.

[@Dinosaurthingything]

@@iamshredder3587 dude, even without evolution, birds are as much so dinosaurs as whales are mammals. It’s a way of classifying populations of organisms. Just like a species / subspecies is a way of classifying individuals within a population, and a population in comparison to others. Regardless, evolution holds true, but even if it didn’t, even under your creationist views, birds are as much so within Archosauria, Avemetatarsalia, Dinosauria, Saurischia, Theropoda, Maniraptoriformorpha, Avialae, Ornithurae, and Aves as a hyena is within Mammaliamorpha, Mammaliaformes, Mammalia, Eutheria, Placentalia, Carnivoramorpha, Feliformia, Herpestoidea, and Hyaenidae is. Regardless of how they got to be here, due to genetic, physical, sometimes behavioral, and fossil evidences, we group these animals this way.

[@jimmiewomble416]

Archeopteryx, Google that one.

[@infrasonica]

The thumbnail would have been the perfect opportunity for that anime butterfly meme

[@Anthony_Gx]

So T-Rex became a chicken coz that’s obviously much more beneficial for it and real progression 🤨

[@lizd2943]

No, the evidence is the chicken is T-Rex's closest living relative. There's still a large amount of distance and branching between them. T Rexes didn't become anything. They went extinct in the aftermath of the K/T impact event.

[@kamion53]

T-rex became a chicken because it realise otherwise the drumsticks would not fit in the oven. Isn't it nice of the T-rex to evolve into a bite sized meal?

[@cezar211091]

so you're saying birds are not well suited for their environment because they're not a 10 ton animal. you're forgetting that chihuahuas are still technically wolves

[@anarchorepublican5954]

🐔💬painful Evolutionary strategy, admittedly...but it worked...hungry T-Rex is long extinct 🚫🦖..but there's a KFC, Popeye's, or Wingstop on every corner🍗🍟🥤..

[@anarchorepublican5954]

@@lizd2943 ...and how come all those Jurassic Dino-Chickens 🦤didn't go extinct in the aftermath of the K/T impact event as well? 🐢 or Me?... 🐊or me? 🐍or Me? 🦎or Me? 🐜or Me? 🦗or Me? 🕷or Me? 🐟or Me? 🦈or Me? 🐸 or Me?...etc. etc.

[@yrosenstein]

This guy knows about bird anatomy alright but misses the similarities with dinosaurs.

[@Converterguy]

This one time I saw a brontosaurus turn into a canary. No i didn't, and neither did anyone else. If it's not observed, it didn't happen

[@robertjackson1813]

That's f****** retarded. How are you gonna say that when there was a meteor strike in Siberia? Way back in the day nobody said they saw it. But it flattened miles upon miles of trees did that not happen

[@pierre-samuelroux9364]

And it stiupid assumption

[@Converterguy]

@@pierre-samuelroux9364 Speak english much?

[@pierre-samuelroux9364]

@@Converterguy i did

[@InqvisitorMagnvs]

Did you watch LORD Yahweh create the world in 7 days (twice)..? Did you observe the angry LORD Yahweh murder every man, woman, child in Sodom and Gomorrah in a jealous temper tantrum? Did you watch nasty LORD Yahweh create a giant flood to genocide the entire population of planet earth in yet another one of his petty temper tantrums? Did you witness LORD Jehovah sending 10 plagues to terrorize the Egyptian people, and murder the firstborn sons of everyone who was not part of his Chosen Race? Did you watch LORD Yahweh tell Abraham to stab his own son Isaac to death, then at the last minute say just kidding, instead just grab a sharp rock to chop off part of your baby boys' genitals as a "covenant"? Did you watch LORD Yahweh turn into a talking burning bush to issue commands to Moishe? All of these things definitely happened, whether observed or not, for they are written in LORD Jehovah's Holy Torah.

[@maximpestsolutions3696]

Thank you Dr. Menton for your work and Testimony 😇👍. God 🙏 Bless ✝️.

[@greyideasthetheliopurodon4640]

He lied throughout this entire thing

[@robertjackson1813]

Notice how the guy isn't answering you

[@johnl4933]

No it isn't a dinosaur. Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs.

[@malchir4036]

And still tick all of the boxes of theropod dinosaurs, so birds are theropod dinosaurs, therefore dinosaurs.

[@chciken]

To evolve from is to be that from which you evolved

[@johnl4933]

@@chciken Nice deepity.

[@johnl4933]

@@malchir4036 A particular type of dinosaur. It's a little like saying "dogs evolved from mammals."

[@malchir4036]

@@johnl4933 All dinosaurs are a particular type of dinosaur. That's a moot point.

[@PortmanRd]

The last people I'd ask for information about dinosaurs and the natural world would be Creationists. I'd probably get a better answer from a 6 year old.

[@stevemcclendon9297]

Ok sleepy Joe time to get off the stage. And let your writers know thew need to actually do some research or go to school.

[@noliberalismeveragain]

dna irreducible complexity.....billions of coding

[@lordpula1193]

So they are reptiles then

[@chciken]

Yes

[@chciken]

Dinosaurs are reptiles so by extension birds are reptiles

[@Dandelion0962]

And Love Stinks, Sow Truth Haters Can Smell Wretched

[@alejandrorivera1782]

Sir if someone tells you that dinosaurs had feathers simple questions?show me and them ask them how old they are hopefully they are not 55 billion years old cause there's a wunderwaffe to kill those zombies

[@petratuccino717]

Birds are magnificently designed by our Heavenly Father. We, as Christians, should not be eating these beautiful sentient animals. Please, live and let live! Real Christians are #Vegan

[@ianmonk6211]

veganism is too extreme. Real Christians eat the passover Lamb commanded by Jesus in Exodus. Which was His last meal before His crucifixion. main stream Christians reject passover for their pagan Easter which originates from worshipping the goddess Ishtar also known as Dianna Semiramis queen of heaven and Mary in Catholicism.

[@Danplays3000]

Immma eat them at McDonald's reeeeee

[@leopardlillyirisdomestica7213]

Birds Are Dinosaurs And Bats Are Not Birds

[@idonisthelover]

@@Danplays3000 reeeeee yourself to church & repent.

[@stephaniefogelvik4756]

That's completely unbiblical. Veganism is demonic and very unhealthy.

[@dukekelloway5328]

Why would a perfect being need the process of bone fusion? This perfect being certainly made things complex and completely unnecessary. Almost like he didn't know what he was doing.

[@rodericgurrola1745]

Yes he made the animals complex but it does seem unnecessary but he didn’t just make them to live in the world he wanted to show Beauty in his creation for His pleasure as well as for our own. And to marvel at the beauty and complexity of these creatures.

[@Dinosaurthingything]

@@rodericgurrola1745 complexity shows lack of good design, on average.

[@truthbebold4009]

​@@Dinosaurthingything The space shuttle is a simple design? Wow

[@Dandelion0962]

Heavy on the Bass, Adam and Eve’s Luciferian Tango

[@Danplays3000]

Birds evolved from dinosaurs it's just a fact and they are related

[@Timelord42192]

No, it's a theory based on cladistic analysis, which pre-assumes that all living things descended from a single common ancestor (despite this being literally impossible to prove). Detailed examination of the relevant anatomy shows that there are several significant differences between even the most bird-like dinosaurs and the most dinosaur-like birds. Scientifically, suggesting that birds and dinosaurs represent separate groups is at least as legitimate as the official narrative is. It all depends on how you choose to classify living things (phylogenetically, morphologically, ecologically, etc.).

[@shadowaccount8620]

@@Timelord42192 but a book saying it's true because it's true is fact? Got it.

[@malchir4036]

@@Timelord42192 No need for "pre-assumptions"(assumptions would already be pre) as it's very easy to demonstrate. And it's not based on cladistic analysis, their cladistics is the conclusion. It's based on the fossil record, comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, and the list goes on and on and on... How to say you don't know what you're talking about while not stating you don't know what you're talking about.