How can atheism have morality?

** My post had twins **

originally posted by: whereislogic
Do T-Rexes have the same type of hollow bones as a bird? Are you really going to try to sell this falsehood to me? What's next, are T-Rexes now suddenly warm-blooded like birds (including seagulls)?

Lol what do you want me to say? Yes, both T. rex and birds had hollow bones and air sacs, tyrannosaurs share a common ancestor with chickens which is why chickens have a few similarities. Birds are not descendants of any large species of dinosaur but share common ancestors.
The only theropods known to not possess hollow bones are the spinosauroids.

a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

I guess we can add the term "hollow" to my list of re-defined terms for the sake of evolutionary propaganda. Porous does not equal hollow.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

I guess we can add the term "hollow" to my list of re-defined terms for the sake of evolutionary propaganda. Porous does not equal hollow.

Saurischian dinosaurs had hollow bones, I don't know wtf else to tell you man. Without hollow bones sauropods wouldn't have been able to grow to such enormous sizes. The actual calcification within the bones are much denser and stronger than mammalian bones of the same size, despite weighing the same- because the bones are hollow. The inner bone structure is a network of struts.







Here is a legitimate fossil of a tyrannosaurus rex right hind foot ↓↓↓

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: whereislogic

They hollowed out a little more.

A little? Besides, that is a claim, not a historical fact. To substantiate such a claim, it would be really useful to include a chain of fossils (photo's that do not focus on just one bone type, but consider the entire skeletal structure of the animal in question, including those bones that aren't even porous, not conveniently leaving that inconvenient fact out of your presentation) that demonstrate this gradual hollowing out, bit by bit, with no large gaps (jumps) anywhere in the chain. Also, the chain must follow the same evolutionary chain as drawn in the ever-changing evolutionary trees (you can't include animals that are not direct descendants of the one that came before in this chain, no 'cousins' allowed, as depicted in the graph you used for dinosaurs, where if you follow the lines of specific organisms named at the end of a line back to its origin, you will only come across generic names like theropoda, or dinosauria, and any specifically named animal, if named at all, is on a sideline, i.e. a cousin supposedly sharing common ancestry to an unspecified ancestor for which no specific fossil has been identified as being that common ancestor*).

*: Note that Aves (bird) is also a generic name for an entire group of different animals (I don't think the diagram includes any specific animal, so what I was saying there about 'cousins', counts more for other diagrams I have seen, but the group Aves/birds is depicted there as being 'cousins' to Maniraptora for example, no further specifics are given as to which specific animal they share a common ancestry with). What animal did seagulls evolve from according to that diagram? From Tetanurae, which one? Why so vague? Why won't they identify which specific animal seagulls (or birds in general) actually evolved from, so we have something that can be evaluated (including the accompanying fossils specific to that animal)?

a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

Please use photo's of actual fossilized bones (of T-Rex, cross-sections), not drawings (or plastic reconstructions). Also consider that not all bones in a particular dinosaur look the same on the inside. Please include the bones that are the least hollow or porous in your presentation (that would prevent flight because of their weight). Don't cherry-pick the most porous ones.

... Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths.

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

Please use photo's of actual fossilized bones (of T-Rex, cross-sections), not drawings (or plastic reconstructions). Also consider that not all bones in a particular dinosaur look the same on the inside. Please include the bones that are the least hollow or porous in your presentation (that would prevent flight because of their weight). Don't cherry-pick the most porous ones.

... Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths.

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

Just look at any polished slab of dinosaur bone, the inner structure is identical to the inner structure of bird bones. I do not think you understand what is meant by hollow, you would probably think bird bones are also just porous.

a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

Thank you, wonderful, and now a cross-section of an actual bird bone, so we can all see the very clear difference (from what cold blooded dinosaur/reptile is the middle photo? Is that a T-Rex bone? Are any of the others from T-Rex? The middle photo doesn't look similar to the other 2 apart from the central inner part of the bone, but that's not the only part of the bone, now we will need to see a chain where the outer more solid part of the bone, is gradually becoming more and more porous, until it is actually hollow like that of a bird or resembles the central inner part at least, before we start making claims or implications* about T-Rexes having "hollow bones" just like a bird, or subsequent species that are direct descendants of T-Rex). *: the implication coming from the use of the term "hollow bones" as the same term is also applied to bird bones.

We can already see the clear difference with the drawing that you used first. The outer more solid part already takes up much more of the bone as in that drawing, and the main reason this (3rd picture is the best) is not a "hollow bone" like that of a bird. And why T-Rexes (or whatever animal that bone was from) can't fly, too much bone weight.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

Thank you, wonderful, and now a cross-section of an actual bird bone, so we can all see the very clear difference (from what cold blooded dinosaur/reptile is the middle photo? Is that a T-Rex bone? Are any of the others from T-Rex? The middle photo doesn't look similar to the other 2 apart from the central part of the bone, but that's not the only part of the bone, now we will need to see a chain where the outer more solid part of the bone, is gradually becoming more and more porous, until it is actually hollow like that of a bird or resembles the central part at least, before we start making claims or implications* about T-Rexes having "hollow bones" just like a bird, or subsequent species that are direct descendants of T-Rex). *: the implication coming from the use of the term "hollow bones" as the same term is also applied to bird bones.

We can already see the clear difference with the drawing that you used first.

All 3 images are fossilized bone from sauropods and theropods.

a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

So no T-rexes then? How about using some relevant photo's then (relevant to the claim I was responding to)?

Does the middle photo only show the inner central part of the bone? Are only similarities relevant to this discussion, or should we, for once, also consider the differences for a change? I understand that focusing on the differences between animals or animal groups does not help the evolutionary storyline, but should they be completely ignored and talked past as if they don't even exist or as if it's a given that evolution can make all the necessary changes to account for these differences? Is that an honest approach?

a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

If I take a cross-section photo of the part of the bone that is called "spongy bone" in the video above, and claim that this is evidence that humans have "hollow bones" (as the term is applied to bird bones), would you accept such an argument as valid?

Do humans have hollow bones as well? Which animal types(groups) do not have hollow bones according to how the term "hollow bones" is applied to therapods like T.Rex?

Does the presence of one "hollow bone" (as applied to therapods) in the entire skeletal structure of a specific animal warrant the statement: this animal species has hollow bones (with no mention of having any other type of bone)? Or the same statement regarding the whole group this animal species belongs to (as in the case of therapods)?

No need to watch the video below, I only have a simple question regarding the capture/picture: is that a "hollow bone"? (it looks the same as your 3rd photo)

Ok, one more question about that picture, is it honest to refer to that bone as a "hollow bone" (as the term is applied to bird bones)? That's not a bird bone is it?

Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

And if there is no ambiguity, some people are motivated to create some, even if it's about such simple words such as "nothing" or terms as "hollow bones".

... Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.

Be selective: ...

Use discernment: ...

Put information to the test: ...

Ask questions: As we have seen, there are many today who would like to ‘delude us with persuasive arguments.’ (Colossians 2:4) Therefore, when we are presented with persuasive arguments, we should ask questions.

First, examine whether there is bias. What is the motive for the message? If the message is rife with name-calling and loaded words, why is that? Loaded language aside, what are the merits of the message itself? Also, if possible, try to check the track record of those speaking. Are they known to speak the truth? If “authorities” are used, who or what are they? Why should you regard this person—or organization or publication—as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question? If you sense some appeal to emotions, ask yourself, ‘When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the message?’

Do not just follow the crowd: If you realize that what everybody thinks is not necessarily correct, you can find the strength to think differently. While it may seem that all others think the same way, does this mean that you should? Popular opinion is not a reliable barometer of truth. Over the centuries all kinds of ideas have been popularly accepted, only to be proved wrong later. Yet, the inclination to go along with the crowd persists. ...

...

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

I really am just trying to help. Even those who do not want to hear it and are about as openminded to the truth as a member of the Westboro Baptist Church (not intended as an insult or ad hominem but as a heads-up, in my attempt to remain honest and straightforward about what I am observing here on ATS).

Keep in mind that bird bones in contrast to reptile/dinosaur bones were described as follows in my initial comment:

The bird’s bones are thin and hollow, unlike the reptile’s solid ones.

Not just hollow, thin and hollow. Would anyone here describe the 3rd photo as "thin" like that of a bird (i.e. in this context)? No, that is not "thin" in that context, the more solid (less porous) part of the bone takes up almost half of the bone's volume. That's not thin as depicted in the drawing earlier (first picture in the comment before the photos).

Dinosaurs are atheist and have no morals...

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

I just like looking at the myths and legends from other perspectives.

I don't think Yahweh was a literal dragon obviously, but it does go to show he has some pretty interesting characteristics that aren't often talked about because they don't generalally fit in with the feel good narrative.

I wonder if in 10,000 years humans will look back on this time and say a great civilization that went among the starts called Star Trek was lost forever...lol

originally posted by: whereislogic

Not just hollow, thin and hollow. Would anyone here describe the 3rd photo as "thin" like that of a bird (i.e. in this context)? No, that is not "thin" in that context, the more solid (less porous) part of the bone takes up almost half of the bone's volume. That's not thin as depicted in the drawing earlier (first picture in the comment before the photos).

What I think some people are missing is bird bones were not at first light so they could fly, they were light so dinosaurs could grow bigger. dinosaurs also had pneumatic bones as do most bird species. What helped dinosaurs breathe with such huge weight also helps birds today to fly higher and not be as affected by lower O2.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

Whereislogic is right on this one, the above photo of a dinosaur bone looks closer to a human bone than it does a bird bone. Checkout the inside of bird bones:



This is why we can't just blindly trust what the 'experts' say, they're fallible just like every other person. And they also REALLY want to push the evolution narrative because they know all the peer-reviewers are die-hard evolutionists. They don't even consider looking into evidence against evolution

a reply to: cooperton

This is why we can't just blindly trust what the 'experts' say, they're fallible just like every other person. And they also REALLY want to push the evolution narrative because they know all the peer-reviewers are die-hard evolutionists. They don't even consider looking into evidence against evolution

I don't see you doing anything different. The only difference is you have no peer-reviewed evidence. At least a "die-hard evolutionist" has hard evidence. You have none.

originally posted by: Phantom42338 The only difference is you have no peer-reviewed evidence. At least a "die-hard evolutionist" has hard evidence. You have none.

Another patently false statement. I repeatedly refer to amino acid polymerization being thermodynamically unfavorable in water, which is a well known fact as well as empirically peer-reviewed:


link

This is why there is no working model for abiogenesis, it strictly defies thermodynamic law

a reply to: cooperton

Sure. Now post a dozen research papers that support your "theory".