Did you follow that? Some “non-bird” feathered dinosaurs may have been birds?
Science writer Jennifer Viegas in Discovery News summarizes a research paper which had been published in February 2009 Medical Hypotheses.
What is a non-avian dinosaur? Or more to the point, why are certain of God’s creatures known broadly as non-avian dinosaurs? After all, aren’t all creatures either avians or non-avians?
It’s because in the absence of that description people would think that they were birds! In order to support the evolutionists current dinosaur to bird mythology, however, science needs these birds to be dinosaurs.
Suppose evolutionists had a mythology that t-rex’s evolved into dogs. Certain extremely dog-like fossils would be named; –non-dog-ian dinosaurs. (non-canine-dinosaurs)That way everyone would “know”. .
“Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian noted that a cadre of “zealots” were trying to “actively promulgate the theropod dinosaur origin of birds theory in concert with Nature and National Geo”. They were in fact working to convince the public that it was all “settled science’.
Olson called them “highly biased proselytizers of the faith”, which really had to sting. Shortly thereafter, their golden transitional feathered dinosaur fossil, Archaeoraptor, turned out to be made up of Elmer’s Glue, multiple fossils and imagination.”..s8int.com Source
It should be noted that unlike most other scientific journals, Medical Hypotheses does not require that the articles they publish be “peer reviewed” which explains how an article that suggests that birds might in fact be birds–got published in the first place.
Some non-dumb scientists may have been……
Thank you, Chris Z
Some “Non-Avian Feathered Dinosaurs” May Have Been Birds .
By Jennifer Viegas Thu Jan 7, 2010, Discovery News
“So called “non-avian theropod” dinosaurs from the Cretaceous had feathers, nests, laid eggs and roosted like birds. If they were so much like birds, why don’t we just say they were birds?
A paper in the February issue of Medical Hypotheses argues that these “dinosaurs” could very well, in fact, have been birds. The group includes what are now called troodontids and oviraptorids.
All birds are technically avian dinosaurs,(!!!!) but there’s still controversy over exactly how and when the first actual birds emerged.
UC Berkeley’s J. Lee Kavanau, the author of the paper, argues that there is ample evidence supporting that troodontids and oviraptorids were secondary flightless birds. These birds, like today’s ostriches and emus, lost their ability to fly, but retained their feathers.
“This evidence ranges from bird-like bodies and bone designs, adapted for climbing, perching, gliding, and ultimately flight, to relatively large, highly developed brains, poor sense of smell, and their feeding habits,” Kavanau writes. “Because ratites also are secondarily flightless and tinamous are reluctant, clumsy fliers, the new evidence strengthens the view that troodontids and oviraptorids were secondarily flightless.””