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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

And when did snakes stop talking.

---

When mankind stopped listening with their hearts and took consiouness being into the brain ;D and the head keeps growing (with the ego.) ;)

Now only those who have an ear to hear can hear.

( H ear t ) see there is an ear hidden in the heart.

don't know if anyone has said this, but strictly speaking, dinosaurs weren't even alive in the jurassic period.

and I agree. I've often wondered how they even know that bone A joins bone B. fuck, give me a box of old bones and I'll come up with something NEVER before seen.

Von will it work, thats the important thing. ;D

Dem bones?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

Von will it work, thats the important thing. ;D

---

no, the IMPORTANT thing is that science won't be able to DISPROVE it. :cool:

Got two extra bones? Screw it. Put that one here and this one there. Done. New species. Had purple feathers and a metal plate on its head. And only had one flipper, but had three back legs. ;D

Evolution vs Creationism aside, I think we can all agree that the dinosaurs looked a lot cooler when they didn't have feathers....I mean damn! put a couple feathers on a velociraptor and you get something that looks like Joan Rivers wearing the San Diego Chicken Costume

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Evolution vs Creationism aside, I think we can all agree that the dinosaurs looked a lot cooler when they didn't have feathers....I mean damn! put a couple feathers on a velociraptor and you get something that looks like Joan Rivers wearing the San Diego Chicken Costume

---

It never would have worked for Spielberg that's for sure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

And when did snakes stop talking.

---

Well i for one and still fcking my sister. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozeboxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

And when did snakes stop talking.

---

Well i for one and still fcking my sister. :)

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

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.

---

Ape man had feathers? Awesome!

You've got to hand it to Bilbo. It must have taken real effort to come up with the original post. Admit it mate, you're having a laugh, aren't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

You've got to hand it to Bilbo. It must have taken real effort to come up with the original post. Admit it mate, you're having a laugh, aren't you?

---

Yes I am indeed laughing my ass off but that IS the OFFICIAL velociraptor as it is now believed to have looked.

Just type in velociraptor and feathers into google, it's proven beyond doubt apparently, they were covered in feathers and looked just like that, its a SCIENTIFIC FACT :cool::rolleyes:;D

If I designed dinos, I would make one with like a glow-stick like quality........say it evolved for finding mates or june bugs, etc.

Bilbo - are you implying that Google or the internet has anything to do with 'real' scientific fact ??? Surely we don't absolutely belive things that come up on a computer through a public internet search engine which earns revenue from corporate and government keyword sponsorship. ;)


Incidentally, with the number of threads you have started about science and creationism and all that ..... are you really a creationist, seriously??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

You've got to hand it to Bilbo. It must have taken real effort to come up with the original post. Admit it mate, you're having a laugh, aren't you?

---

Yes I am indeed laughing my ass off but that IS the OFFICIAL velociraptor as it is now believed to have looked.

Just type in velociraptor and feathers into google, it's proven beyond doubt apparently, they were covered in feathers and looked just like that, its a SCIENTIFIC FACT :cool::rolleyes:;D

---

You're having a laugh mate. You sat down and thought of the most ridiculous argument you could make. You even managed to insert a popup book into it, which I'm impressed with. But you are having a laugh.

I'm not sure what you mean Laing? Are you preposing that Velociraptor DOESN'T look like that feathered turkey monster according to science?

Because I assure you it does! It is considered a scientific fact now that Velocripator was covered in feathers and looked just like the turkey monster in question. This new image has even made its way to the latest childrens books.

Please I invite you to google it yourself.

Velociraptor Had Feathers

]Velociraptor was a feathered fiend - Times Online




The bbc news service covered it as well

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Velociraptor dino 'had feathers'




So it's now a FACT of science that that is what Velociraptor looked like, if you're disagreeing you're disagreeing with science not me :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I'm not sure what you mean Laing? Are you preposing that Velociraptor DOESN'T look like that feathered turkey monster according to science?

Because I assure you it does! It is considered a scientific fact now that Velocripator was covered in feathers and looked just like the turkey monster in question. This new image has even made its way to the latest childrens books.

Please I invite you to google it yourself.

Velociraptor Had Feathers

]Velociraptor was a feathered fiend - Times Online




The bbc news service covered it as well

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Velociraptor dino 'had feathers'




So it's now a FACT of science that that is what Velociraptor looked like, if you're disagreeing you're disagreeing with science not me :)

---

Yes it is, so what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I'm not sure what you mean Laing? Are you preposing that Velociraptor DOESN'T look like that feathered turkey monster according to science?

Because I assure you it does! It is considered a scientific fact now that Velocripator was covered in feathers and looked just like the turkey monster in question. This new image has even made its way to the latest childrens books.

Please I invite you to google it yourself.

Velociraptor Had Feathers

]Velociraptor was a feathered fiend - Times Online




The bbc news service covered it as well

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Velociraptor dino 'had feathers'




So it's now a FACT of science that that is what Velociraptor looked like, if you're disagreeing you're disagreeing with science not me :)

---

Yes it is, so what?

---

So why are you criticising my pictures?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I'm not sure what you mean Laing? Are you preposing that Velociraptor DOESN'T look like that feathered turkey monster according to science?

Because I assure you it does! It is considered a scientific fact now that Velocripator was covered in feathers and looked just like the turkey monster in question. This new image has even made its way to the latest childrens books.

Please I invite you to google it yourself.

Velociraptor Had Feathers

]Velociraptor was a feathered fiend - Times Online




The bbc news service covered it as well

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Velociraptor dino 'had feathers'




So it's now a FACT of science that that is what Velociraptor looked like, if you're disagreeing you're disagreeing with science not me :)

---

Yes it is, so what?

---

So why are you criticising my pictures?

---

Because how something is portrayed in a popup book or a Hollywood movie doesn't qualify as empirical evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Yes it is, so what?

---

So why are you criticising my pictures?

---

Because how something is portrayed in a popup book or a Hollywood movie doesn't qualify as empirical evidence.

---

The feather picture I presented wasn't from my pop up book. Go check out Wiki's view, they have even added wings!!!

The second pic I provided IS the SCIENTIFIC opinion of what they looked like. Actually to be more precise, it's the viw that science wants to convey it looked like in current books and literature to emphasise that they believe that therapod dinosaurs like velociraptor were the descendents of birds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

So why are you criticising my pictures?

---

Because how something is portrayed in a popup book or a Hollywood movie doesn't qualify as empirical evidence.

---

The feather picture I presented wasn't from my pop up book. Go check out Wiki's view, they have even added wings!!!

The second pic I provided IS the SCIENTIFIC opinion of what they looked like. Actually to be more precise, it's the viw that science wants to convey it looked like in current books and literature to emphasise that they believe that therapod dinosaurs like velociraptor were the descendents of birds.

---

Which scientists believe that they descended from birds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Because how something is portrayed in a popup book or a Hollywood movie doesn't qualify as empirical evidence.

---

The feather picture I presented wasn't from my pop up book. Go check out Wiki's view, they have even added wings!!!

The second pic I provided IS the SCIENTIFIC opinion of what they looked like. Actually to be more precise, it's the viw that science wants to convey it looked like in current books and literature to emphasise that they believe that therapod dinosaurs like velociraptor were the descendents of birds.

---

Which scientists believe that they descended from birds?

---

Erm every single scientist apart from Alan Fedducia who is the lone ornithologist voice against the therapod evolution of birds into dinosaurs.

According to science it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt now, allegedly.

Regardless of any scientific theories, I must say that Im still very upset by that second picture of the Velociraptor. All those feathers and colours and flailing limbs looking all dressed up for Halloween. I used to love dinosaurs as a kid and would memorize all their names and collect books with wonderful images of these great lizards with leather like skin and teeth as sharp as knives. And here in my adulthood I am being told that the velociraptor was actually a multicoloured flamer with cutesy little feathers? Its disheartening to say the least.

We will have T Rex with a mullet and goatee beard next, as if the puny looking arms werent embarrassing enough! Leave my dinosaurs alone! :mad:;D

I like dinosaurs. but a dinosaur having feathers is kinda weird but then again im no scientist. they probably have found a different species that has feathers on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Regardless of any scientific theories, I must say that Im still very upset by that second picture of the Velociraptor. All those feathers and colours and flailing limbs looking all dressed up for Halloween. I used to love dinosaurs as a kid and would memorize all their names and collect books with wonderful images of these great lizards with leather like skin and teeth as sharp as knives. And here in my adulthood I am being told that the velociraptor was actually a multicoloured flamer with cutesy little feathers? Its disheartening to say the least.

We will have T Rex with a mullet and goatee beard next, as if the puny looking arms werent embarrassing enough! Leave my dinosaurs alone! :mad:;D

---

It's funny you should mention T Rex a few years ago a concerted effort was undertaken by certain evolutionists to put feathers on the T Rex too. It is now accepted (I'm being serious) that the early ancestors of T Rex were feathered and that actual baby T Rex's were born with feathers but that these fell off as the animal matured.

It is also widely accepted that a T Rex is closer to a chicken than a crocodile.

Here's a new book on the subject courtesy of those perennial bullshitters The National Geographic

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/14...13bc69.jpg?v=0