Well, did dinosaurs do the Chicken Dance? There was that whole bit about a “Chicken from Hell” so who knows?
I ran across Mindy Weisberger’s article Dinosaur Tracks Reveal Odd Mating Dance, Live Science, January 7, 2016 AD.
Apparently, scientists, don’t cha know, discerned a “Mating Dance” by dinosaur that they know is “Odd” (I guess to the usual dinosaur mating dances in the fossil record—or, something) based on lines on the ground.
Well, we live in the age of promulgating the assertion that, as the article put is, “‘dinosaurs’ alive today — modern birds.” Thus, this is said to be “the first physical evidence linking dinosaur mating display behavior to that of living birds” since lines on the ground, the actual and only evidence, are biasedly interpreted, worldview-philosophy, as per the latest desperate attempts to prop up evolution.
The problem is that when such schools of thought arise they, as evolution as a whole, are used in just that way: to interpret evidence. Thus, as Martin Lockley put it, who is the co-author of the Nature Scientific Reports study on these lines and emeritus professor of geology at the University of Colorado, “It seems like every five to 10 years there’s a new category of evidence that comes to light, and then it’s like, ‘Oh, it’s everywhere, why didn’t we find this before?’” So you see how now, this interpretation of evidence based on the bias that dinosaurs turned into birds (and/or that birds are dinosaurs) becomes a worldview-philosophical template whereby to henceforth interpret future findings of lines on the ground.
Mindy Weisberger begins by asking “Did dinosaurs shake a tail feather?” my answer to which as “No, because they did not have any.”
Here is a great example of a “feathered dinosaur” as per a reconstruction of Gigantoraptor:
Yet, while the reconstruction displays feathers while the fossil does not:
Gigantoraptor had long arms, bird-like legs, a toothless jaw, and probably a beak. There are no clear signs as to whether it was feathered. However, judging from its close affinity to other dinosaurs known to have been feathered, Xing Xu of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing speculates that it was. (emphasis added for emphasis)1
Thus, the publically accessible illustration (how many will actually read science papers on that?) vividly display Darwinian mythology even when the evidence does not.
Between all of the philosophical guess work “Suggests…may have…Not likely…Probably not…wouldn’t have…possibilities…Could they have been” we learn that the actual scientific, observable, demonstrable evidence is 60 of what is variously referred to as “tracks,” “scrapes,” and “scratch marks” found in Colorado which are dated to a specific, “millions of years ago” ’cause, well, why not?
Martin Lockley (right) and Ken Cart (left)
We are told “we know what kind of dinosaur made them” based on what seems to be “three-toed footprint of a theropod” and yet the question is “what were they doing?”
Well the scientists know that millions of years ago they were not “digging for water” and that millions of years ago they were not “searching for food” and that millions of years ago they were not searching for “buried carcasses.” Nope, they know that millions of years ago they were “nest building” but how do they know? Because the pop-theory de jour tells them to think that way, to come to such conclusions and hey, who wants to report that millions of years ago dinosaurs dug for water, searched for food or for buried carcasses? Then you do not get interviewed, book deals, TV specials, etc. But follow the—grant—money since by interpreting the evidence as such they can proclaim that this is “the first physical evidence” of something they presuppose and want to prove.
Now, even though scientists, be thou impressed, know that millions of years ago dinosaurs dug for water, searched for food or for buried carcasses but were nest building, a “mating display behavior known as ‘scraping,’ common in modern ground-nesting birds Lockley is very specific in stating “We were calling them ‘digging dinosaur’ traces” (emphasis added for emphasis).
Mindy Weisberger wrote, “Like television’s Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) detectives, the scientists faced the challenge of recreating a scenario” and yet, unlike the CSI, who have to, you know, actually present evidence to a court, jury and judge, scientists make vague interpretive claims which lead to more vague interpretive claims.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.