Come on Kitten, I have had enough of your rot and Subby's. You say dinos have hollow bones and the article also says so. You are both mistaken.<quoted text>
YOU learn to read and comprehend together like a human being is supposed to be able to do. This is what the article says...
"Modern birdsor avian dinosaursshare a different set of traits, such as hollow bones and rapid growth, than those exhibited by their prehistoric predecessors."
IOW.. Modern birds HAVE a DIFFERENT set of traits, including hollow bones than their predecessors, eg Arch. In my other article ARCH HAS A DIFFERENT GROWTH RATE TO BIRDS and LIKE DINOSAURS.
ARCH DID NOT HAVE HOLLOW BONES, you and the rest of the gaggle of geese! Nor did it have a furcula that looked anything like a modern bird, nor are feathers solely an avian trait, nor are dino beaks, and the entirely of evolutionary theory is based on ROT, yet my 6 points stand strong.
I seriously get tired of responses from empty vessels that can chase tails with philosophy, bomb out everytime they try to talk science and want to reinforce their scientific ignorance. You keep talking about your la de da stuff and vagueary because are much better at that. Evo philosophers!
Now Kitten are you and that other goose Subby going to fess up to being unable to engage reading and comprehension skills both at the same time and were WRONG? Birds have hollow bones.
My six point stand as evidence for creation and you evos simply cannot refute them. Due to the fact that my assertions are based on raw data, stripped of evo excuses, you will not be able to refute me, struggle as you may. It is all a hypothesis but I do not have to complicate the data, even as biased as it is, by adding assumptions and stories that these evos have to come up with.
However, I can better refute you, because your hypothesis/excuses are your evo supports and are challengeable exactly because they are hypothesis, and not the data.
So instead I reckon you evos should post and articulate what you see as some scientific points, data and links (not philosophy), that you feel is convincing support for TOE and let's look at them, because so far none I have spoken to appear to be credible and robust.