The all new Velociraptor and why I laugh at 'science'

A great example of the indoctrination of evolutionary ideas can be found in the modern depiction of the famous Velociraptor dinosaur of Jurassic Park fame.

Ignoring the fact that Spielberg's depiction was wildy innacurate in terms of their size (they were half that if that even only a bit bigger than a turkey) its almost comical how much they have changed their look to fit their idea that they were the ancestors of birds.

In dinosaur books a decade ago they looked like this

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/...2L._SS500_.jpg







However nowadays, including in a new pop up book I bought for my nephew that arrived this morning they look like this.


http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk..._feathered.jpg


The feathers, colouring, turkey legs etc are all based on nothing more than their conjecture that they were the ancestors of birds and so to emphasise this point they've turned it into a meat eating turkey monster :rolleyes:

And they do this with all the apemen fossils as well.

It's such poor 'science' to defraud people like this imo.

Yep I agree.. They may well have evolved into birds.. But they are pretty much inventing evidence as seen in your second picture.. There is proper study of fossils and evidence, and then there are theories which are as good as fiction... Just because there is a theory of evolution and a structure of how things went, doesn't mean they can take a fossil of a raptor, then colour it the same as a bird and give it turkey legs and say it evolved into a bird..

It is quite funny... To much intelligence for their own good..

The second Velociraptor looks like he's dressed up to hit the gay clubs.

I heard that Spielburg wanted to use Deinonychus (that's probly spelt wrong) but he thought the name velociraptor & the chance to call them 'raptors' was too good to ignore & would sell better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

The second Velociraptor looks like he's dressed up to hit the gay clubs.

---

Or trying out for a role in Braveheart 2...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dizaster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

The second Velociraptor looks like he's dressed up to hit the gay clubs.

---

Or trying out for a role in Braveheart 2...

---

Or else its looking to get cosy with a peacock...

First of all there are all different types if Velociraptors and another thing is scientists have linked dinosaurs from birds. So birds and dinosaurs are some what related.

The second one is too freaky for me. Its like he's put on his clobber and he's doing the old YMCA dance...you go gir....ahem velociraptor.

The first one looks great though, a real fine specimen of a velociraptor. I would throw that one a lamb any day of the week. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

I heard that Spielburg wanted to use Deinonychus (that's probly spelt wrong) but he thought the name velociraptor & the chance to call them 'raptors' was too good to ignore & would sell better

---

Yeah that is correct mate, the Raptors in Jurassic Park were certainly closer to Deinonychus than raptors, as they are twice the size of raptors. Still not as bi as those in the films though.

But I don't have a problem with Spielberg as he's just trying to make an entertaining film but scientists piss me off completely changing the appearance of Velociraptor to try and emphasise their dino-bird brainwash agenda.

A couple years ago they claimed to have found 'quill knobs' on Raptor arms and so confidently declared Raptors were completely feathered dinosaurs even though to my understanding these 'quill knobs' were only found on one particular fossil and not on other raptor fossils.

Still its now an undisputed 'fact' that they were just feathered dinosaurs :rolleyes:

You do realize it is a work in progress, the study and science of the fossil record? I mean, each new find either backs up claims, or changes them.

I'd be more worried about the legitimacy of it if it refused to allow for such change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

You do realize it is a work in progress, the study and science of the fossil record? I mean, each new find either backs up claims, or changes them.

I'd be more worried about the legitimacy of it if it refused to allow for such change.

---

I understand that YB but in the meantime science still present's their findings as factual, only to completely change them later on and then these new findings become fact.

It's like right now we 'know' that life began just over 4 billion years ago. Until a year or so ago we all knew it began 3.8 billion years ago.

We knew the mammoths were wiped out by a comet like the dinosaurs until this year when we find they now wern't

If you look at the history of evolutionary science all you see is that every idea and 'fact' is changed, thrown out, altered, revised etc as they go along demonstrating that nothing was obviously 'fact' before.

The dinosaurs for example died out 65 million years ago. We know this for a fact. I wonder what that number will be in another decade or so?

My bet is that figure will change either higher or lower as evolutionary theories change over the next 30 years or so.

I like how our tails stopped gorwing because we evolved past needing them... we have evolved past needing our appendixes too but for some reason we still have those :confused:

Pretty lax 'scientific rule' there.

It's a theory dressed up in psuedo science

And when did snakes stop talking.

Yes, the size of a drawing in a popup book clearly shows that evolution is a load of rubbish.