For Evolutionists and a Few Open Minded Creationists

[Dell]

Yes, it has. 35 centuries, really. Maybe it's not so odd, then.... being the best seller it is, published in over 2400 languages.

And the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient Biblical manuscripts reveal the painstaking efforts of copyists, to pass down through those centuries, very accurate copies....of which there are thousands!!

Thanks to Frederic G. Kenyon - Wikipedia and others like him!

Yeah... I was referring primarily to the bible as written after Christ and the start of Christianity. Technically the Bible as we know it was compiled well after that as referred to by Subduction Zone. Interesting you also brought up Dead Sea Scrolls which date prior to and after Christ and hidden by a apocalyptic band of Jews called the Essenes from Roman destruction. Some of the contents were old testament and some apocrypha and some there own teachings. It's a great window into the apocalyptic thinking that probably influenced the teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus.

 

[exchemist]

LOL. The guys on these forums really are something... else.

A Brief Explanation About Direct Evidence Along With Examples
[Direct evidence] should directly prove or disprove a fact without making any assumption or inference. If it does resort to assumption or inference, then it will be circumstantial evidence. In other words, it should be based on facts, not coincidences. Secondly, it should be based on personal knowledge or observation, not hearsay.

The basic difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is that, the latter relies on inference or assumption. In fact, circumstantial evidence almost always has more than one explanation.

Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact - such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

Direct Evidence: Definition, Law & Examples

All you rightly agreed "inference does not guarantee a fact",
but your claim that "all facts are produced by inference" is false.

Game Over/

This is utter rubbish of course.

Evidence is not required to "prove or disprove " anything - and most certainly not a "fact" (unless you are Kellyanne Conway, I suppose).

A fact is a fact - something agreed to be true on the basis of objective observation. Evidence comes in the form of facts. These can be used to support, or call into question, a hypothesis or theory. Not a fact. Obviously.

 

[Astrophile]

Are you saying that we do not observe that we reproduce, and we have to assume that we do?

So do you accept that all living things have parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., in an unbroken lineage going indefinitely far back into the past?

If so, do you accept that we are descended from animals that lived during the Triassic period, when there were no primates?

If so, do you accept that we are descended from animals that were not humans, or even primates, in other words that we must have evolved from non-human and non-primate ancestors?

If not, at what point does my argument stop being based on observed facts and start being based on inferences or assumptions?

 

[Astrophile]

Archaeopteryx has flight feathers, like some dinosaur also, and flightless birds. It is debated whether Archaeopteryx was capable of flight.

It has a beak like some dinosaur as well - some of which interestingly were toothless.

Some bird have "teeth". That doesn't rule out the possibility that some ancient birds had teeth. An Archaeopteryx was found to have rounded teeth, and differently spaced. Variety, they say, is the spice of life.

Other animals have claws on their forelimbs, also found in nature today.

I don't understand your argument. What do you infer from these facts?

Archaeopteryx fossils have been found only in rocks of the Tithonian stage of the Upper Jurassic, representing the short period from 150.8 to 148.5 million years ago - Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia . Obviously these Tithonian archapteryxes must have been descended from animals that lived earlier in the Jurassic period, and from the similarity between Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs it is reasonable to infer that these Jurassic ancestors were dinosaurs.

Of course, we don't know whether Archaeopteryx left descendants, or whether they died out without issue. However, the same argument applies to true birds, both modern birds and extinct Cretaceous birds; they must have had Jurassic ancestors, and, from the similarities between birds and dinosaurs, these ancestors were probably dinosaurs.

 

[Polymath257]

LOL. The guys on these forums really are something... else.

A Brief Explanation About Direct Evidence Along With Examples
[Direct evidence] should directly prove or disprove a fact without making any assumption or inference. If it does resort to assumption or inference, then it will be circumstantial evidence. In other words, it should be based on facts, not coincidences. Secondly, it should be based on personal knowledge or observation, not hearsay.

The basic difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is that, the latter relies on inference or assumption. In fact, circumstantial evidence almost always has more than one explanation.

Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact - such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

Direct Evidence: Definition, Law & Examples

All you rightly agreed "inference does not guarantee a fact",
but your claim that "all facts are produced by inference" is false.

Game Over/

Let me give an example that would usually be considered to be 'direct observation'. Suppose you see a chair in your room. You are looking directly at it in good light and you see a chair. Can we agree that is an example of direct observation?

Now, is there a chair in your room? Well, yes, there is. But that it an *inference* from your perception. It is an *assumption* that you are not hallucinating. You *infer* the properties of that chair from your observations. You are *assuming* your eyes give you reliable information. You *assume* that you aren't in 'The Matrix' where all you perceive is an illusion.

The point is that we do NOT see the chair directly: we see the light reflected from that chair. We *infer* based on that light that a chair is in the room.

Even in the case of 'direct observation', there is *still* inference and assumption. The inference chain is shorter and the assumptions are fewer, but ALL knowledge of the real world is based on some sort of assumption and some sort of inference.

 

[nPeace]

Let me give an example that would usually be considered to be 'direct observation'. Suppose you see a chair in your room. You are looking directly at it in good light and you see a chair. Can we agree that is an example of direct observation?

Now, is there a chair in your room? Well, yes, there is. But that it an *inference* from your perception. It is an *assumption* that you are not hallucinating. You *infer* the properties of that chair from your observations. You are *assuming* your eyes give you reliable information. You *assume* that you aren't in 'The Matrix' where all you perceive is an illusion.

The point is that we do NOT see the chair directly: we see the light reflected from that chair. We *infer* based on that light that a chair is in the room.

Even in the case of 'direct observation', there is *still* inference and assumption. The inference chain is shorter and the assumptions are fewer, but ALL knowledge of the real world is based on some sort of assumption and some sort of inference.

Thank you very much for giving us a clear demonstration of how far some scientist are willing to go to twist logic, and use semantic tricks to dupe and delude the masses into accepting foolishness.

This is the same thing I mentioned about the deception scientist use to make their ideas accepted as scientific fact.
I am not impressed. It seems to me you are not being reasonable.

This is how it went.
You said all facts are produced by inference".
You could not support that statement, and still cant.
I provided information that shows that there are facts that are reached without inference.
The video gives one example.

I will give another.
A man has his head attached to his body.
Someone takes a sword and cuts it off.
The head is now detached from the body.
There is no need for me to infer that. I observed it. It is a fact the head was severed from the body.

If say, we found a head, one place, and a body another place, since we have not directly observed, the head being severed from the body, we may assume that the head we found was severed from the body we found. we may be wrong, or we may be right. there is not one conclusion that can be arrived at.
We now have to gather evidence - circumstantial evidence - to try to determine the facts

Your going into if I am imagining it, or if it is really happening, is just ridiculous, and deceptive imo - actually just stretching, and twisting reasoning that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

What we were talking about seemed to have concluded, but now I am wondering what we were actually talking about.
Let me refresh our memory, so that we can get back on track, and conclude.

Subject: Archaeopteryx
Observation:
Let's assume that all scientist agree that Archaeopteryx has flight feathers.
Let's also assume that this is direct evidence of flight feathers - clearly seen.

Question: Did Archaeopteryx fly? Yes or No?
This is what we were discussing.
The only way one can answer that question with a yes or no, is if they had direct evidence - which they don't.
Therefore, they use circumstantial evidence - the need for inference from all the other evidence gathered.
Direct evidence would be where one actually see Archaeopteryx flying.

Further information is found in the article I previously linked which someone refused to read. You haven't demonstrated that attitude as yet - that's left to be seen, so I will refer to it.

Origin of birds
Since the 1990s, a number of additional feathered dinosaurs have been found, providing even stronger evidence of the close relationship between dinosaurs and modern birds. The first of these were initially described as simple filamentous protofeathers, which were reported in dinosaur lineages as primitive as compsognathids and tyrannosauroids. However, feathers indistinguishable from those of modern birds were soon after found in non-avialan dinosaurs as well.

A small minority of researchers have claimed that the simple filamentous "protofeather" structures are simply the result of the decomposition of collagen fiber under the dinosaurs' skin or in fins along their backs, and that species with unquestionable feathers, such as oviraptorosaurs and dromaeosaurs are not dinosaurs, but true birds unrelated to dinosaurs. However, a majority of studies have concluded that feathered dinosaurs are in fact dinosaurs, and that the simpler filaments of unquestionable theropods represent simple feathers. Some researchers have demonstrated the presence of color-bearing melanin in the structures - which would be expected in feathers but not collagen fibers. Others have demonstrated, using studies of modern bird decomposition, that even advanced feathers appear filamentous when subjected to the crushing forces experienced during fossilization, and that the supposed "protofeathers" may have been more complex than previously thought. Detailed examination of the "protofeathers" of Sinosauropteryx prima showed that individual feathers consisted of a central quill (rachis) with thinner barbs branching off from it, similar to but more primitive in structure than modern bird feathers.

Feathered dinosaur
Among non-avian dinosaurs, feathers or feather-like integument have been discovered on dozens of genera via both direct and indirect fossil evidence. The vast majority of feather discoveries have been in coelurosaurian theropods. However, feather-like integument has also been discovered on at least three ornithischians, suggesting that proto-feathers may have been present in earlier dinosaurs.

Here are examples of what we are discussing in regard to direct and indirect / circumstantial evidence, which require assumptions and inference.
We are not discussing whether scientist are seeing an illusion or hallucinating. That's the ridiculous part of your argument.

Are we on the same page?
Have we reached an accurate conclusion on this topic then?

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you very much for giving us a clear demonstration of how far some scientist are willing to go to twist logic, and use semantic tricks to dupe and delude the masses into accepting foolishness.

This is the same thing I mentioned about the deception scientist use to make their ideas accepted as scientific fact.
I am not impressed. It seems to me you are not being reasonable.

This is how it went.
You said all facts are produced by inference".
You could not support that statement, and still cant.
I provided information that shows that there are facts that are reached without inference.
The video gives one example.

I will give another.
A man has his head attached to his body.
Someone takes a sword and cuts it off.
The head is now detached from the body.
There is no need for me to infer that. I observed it. It is a fact the head was severed from the body.

No, you *inferred* that based on what you saw. You *assumed* that what you saw gave reliable information about the world.

If say, we found a head, one place, and a body another place, since we have not directly observed, the head being severed from the body, we may assume that the head we found was severed from the body we found. we may be wrong, or we may be right. there is not one conclusion that can be arrived at.
We now have to gather evidence - circumstantial evidence - to try to determine the facts

If the head was in a different location than the body, then we know that it was separated from the body. We may not yet know the mechanism for that separation, or the timing of it, but that is also a fact (although an inferred one).

Your going into if I am imagining it, or if it is really happening, is just ridiculous, and deceptive imo - actually just stretching, and twisting reasoning that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

What we were talking about seemed to have concluded, but now I am wondering what we were actually talking about.
Let me refresh our memory, so that we can get back on track, and conclude.

Subject: Archaeopteryx
Observation:
Let's assume that all scientist agree that Archaeopteryx has flight feathers.
Let's also assume that this is direct evidence of flight feathers - clearly seen.

Question: Did Archaeopteryx fly? Yes or No?
This is what we were discussing.
The only way one can answer that question with a yes or no, is if they had direct evidence - which they don't.
Therefore, they use circumstantial evidence - the need for inference from all the other evidence gathered.
Direct evidence would be where one actually see Archaeopteryx flying.

And if we than compare all the known examples where that type of feather is present and if we establish a law that flight is associated with those feathers, is that then an inference or the application of an observed law?

Further information is found in the article I previously linked which someone refused to read. You haven't demonstrated that attitude as yet - that's left to be seen, so I will refer to it.

Origin of birds
Since the 1990s, a number of additional feathered dinosaurs have been found, providing even stronger evidence of the close relationship between dinosaurs and modern birds. The first of these were initially described as simple filamentous protofeathers, which were reported in dinosaur lineages as primitive as compsognathids and tyrannosauroids. However, feathers indistinguishable from those of modern birds were soon after found in non-avialan dinosaurs as well.

A small minority of researchers have claimed that the simple filamentous "protofeather" structures are simply the result of the decomposition of collagen fiber under the dinosaurs' skin or in fins along their backs, and that species with unquestionable feathers, such as oviraptorosaurs and dromaeosaurs are not dinosaurs, but true birds unrelated to dinosaurs. However, a majority of studies have concluded that feathered dinosaurs are in fact dinosaurs, and that the simpler filaments of unquestionable theropods represent simple feathers. Some researchers have demonstrated the presence of color-bearing melanin in the structures - which would be expected in feathers but not collagen fibers. Others have demonstrated, using studies of modern bird decomposition, that even advanced feathers appear filamentous when subjected to the crushing forces experienced during fossilization, and that the supposed "protofeathers" may have been more complex than previously thought. Detailed examination of the "protofeathers" of Sinosauropteryx prima showed that individual feathers consisted of a central quill (rachis) with thinner barbs branching off from it, similar to but more primitive in structure than modern bird feathers.

Feathered dinosaur
Among non-avian dinosaurs, feathers or feather-like integument have been discovered on dozens of genera via both direct and indirect fossil evidence. The vast majority of feather discoveries have been in coelurosaurian theropods. However, feather-like integument has also been discovered on at least three ornithischians, suggesting that proto-feathers may have been present in earlier dinosaurs.

Here are examples of what we are discussing in regard to direct and indirect / circumstantial evidence, which require assumptions and inference.
We are not discussing whether scientist are seeing an illusion or hallucinating. That's the ridiculous part of your argument.

Are we on the same page?
Have we reached an accurate conclusion on this topic then?

Hmm....exactly which aspects here do you think are suspect? That there are actual feathers in non-avian dinosaurs? That there are closely related theropods with 'protofeathers' with many of the properties of actual feathers? That these 'protofeathers' also appear in closely related dinosaurs? That all of these species are very similar anatomically and are clearly related (perhaps even the same 'kind')?

What, exactly, do you think is an inference that is questionable here?

 

[Jose Fly]

Thank you very much for giving us a clear demonstration of how far some scientist are willing to go to twist logic, and use semantic tricks to dupe and delude the masses into accepting foolishness.

This is the same thing I mentioned about the deception scientist use to make their ideas accepted as scientific fact.

So another Jehovah's Witness comes into RF to tell us all that science is just one big conspiracy to fool the masses. What I always wonder is.....a conspiracy to do what? What exactly is the point of this conspiracy? What are its goals?

Here are examples of what we are discussing in regard to direct and indirect / circumstantial evidence, which require assumptions and inference.

I have to wonder.....so what? We sentence people to death on "assumptions and inference". If that's okay, why is reaching conclusions about the past history of life on earth via the same means problematic?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

 

[Audie]

This, folks, is an example of the "Grand, Trampling Exit." The effort to synthesis an appropriate level of indignation and victimhood is almost palpable. Oh well, so be it.

I think of it as the Mephitis mephitis exit,
stink the place up before leaving.

 

[Audie]

So another Jehovah's Witness comes into RF to tell us all that science is just one big conspiracy to fool the masses.
.

Psychological projection!

So unsophisticated, but hey...that is what it takes.

 

[nPeace]

No, you *inferred* that based on what you saw. You *assumed* that what you saw gave reliable information about the world.



If the head was in a different location than the body, then we know that it was separated from the body. We may not yet know the mechanism for that separation, or the timing of it, but that is also a fact (although an inferred one).

You do not know anything, according to your argument. You assume you know.
Also, you do not know that the head was separated from the body, but from the evidence, you can infer that the head may have been severed from a body, not the body, and even then your inference may be wrong, for a number of reasons. One, the head may not have been severed at all, since you are assuming that heads belong on bodies, and you may even be assuming that you have a head, and a body, and one is connected to the other, which they may not, according to your argument.

And if we than compare all the known examples where that type of feather is present and if we establish a law that flight is associated with those feathers, is that then an inference or the application of an observed law?

What example are you referring to that you know, remembering that according to you, you cannot know anything, but can only assume?
However, aside from your only being able to assume something to be a law, it is already [according to your argument] assumed, that there are birds with the very same flight feathers, that do not fly.

Hmm....exactly which aspects here do you think are suspect? That there are actual feathers in non-avian dinosaurs? That there are closely related theropods with 'protofeathers' with many of the properties of actual feathers? That these 'protofeathers' also appear in closely related dinosaurs? That all of these species are very similar anatomically and are clearly related (perhaps even the same 'kind')?

What, exactly, do you think is an inference that is questionable here?

Where did you see me make any complaint on anything here, and what complaint did I make, and on what basis do you assume that such an assumption would be right?

 

[Polymath257]

You do not know anything, according to your argument. You assume you know.
Also, you do not know that the head was separated from the body, but from the evidence, you can infer that the head may have been severed from a body, not the body, and even then your inference may be wrong, for a number of reasons. One, the head may not have been severed at all, since you are assuming that heads belong on bodies, and you may even be assuming that you have a head, and a body, and one is connected to the other, which they may not, according to your argument.

Good job.

OK, now we make the basic *assumptions* that the normal laws of physics apply. OK?

Then, we *can* know that this head was connected to that body by comparing attachment points, sizes, etc.

What example are you referring to that you know, remembering that according to you, you cannot know anything, but can only assume?

Well, to get started, we generally *assume* that our senses give at least approximate information about reality. We *assume* that through testing of our ideas and observation that the patterns we find will continue to hold. These are what we call physical laws. We also assume that these same physical laws held in the past. This is what allows us to have knowledge of things in the past, based on the *inferences* made concerning remnants that exist today.

However, aside from your only being able to assume something to be a law, it is already [according to your argument] assumed, that there are birds with the very same flight feathers, that do not fly.

Yes, we *assume* that the patterns we have observed in the past will continue to hold and have also held in the past. That is, after all, what a physical law actually is: an observed pattern.

You do realize that, right? A physical law is an observed pattern? Nothing more?

Where did you see me make any complaint on anything here, and what complaint did I make, and on what basis do you assume that such an assumption would be right?

 

[nPeace]

Good job.

OK, now we make the basic *assumptions* that the normal laws of physics apply. OK?

Then, we *can* know that this head was connected to that body by comparing attachment points, sizes, etc.



Well, to get started, we generally *assume* that our senses give at least approximate information about reality. We *assume* that through testing of our ideas and observation that the patterns we find will continue to hold. These are what we call physical laws. We also assume that these same physical laws held in the past. This is what allows us to have knowledge of things in the past, based on the *inferences* made concerning remnants that exist today.



Yes, we *assume* that the patterns we have observed in the past will continue to hold and have also held in the past. That is, after all, what a physical law actually is: an observed pattern.

You do realize that, right? A physical law is an observed pattern? Nothing more?

Okay, so you assume that you are assuming.
Where are we going? What's your point.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, so you assume that you are assuming.
Where are we going? What's your point.

That our knowledge of the past is not different in kind than our knowledge of the present. Both are based on assumptions and inferences. And, that based on the patterns we observe today, we can make reasonable conclusions about what happened in the past and the nature of the animals and other organisms in the past. That includes the determination that species have changed over time, i.e, evolution.

 

[nPeace]

That our knowledge of the past is not different in kind than our knowledge of the present. Both are based on assumptions and inferences. And, that based on the patterns we observe today, we can make reasonable conclusions about what happened in the past and the nature of the animals and other organisms in the past. That includes the determination that species have changed over time, i.e, evolution.

So we are back here again, the endless circle that evolutionist created on these forums?

No. We establishing that there is a difference between something that can be directly observed and requires no inference, and thus considered a fact, which then can be used along with other evidence or facts along with circumstantial evidence, and something that is not directly observed that requires assumptions and/or inference, and is not a fact, but can be used along with other gathered evidence to try to reach conclusions.
The conclusion arrived at depend on the amount and type of evidence found, which does not necessarily lead to a conclusive fact.

 

[exchemist]

So we are back here again, the endless circle that evolutionist created on these forums?

No. We establishing that there is a difference between something that can be directly observed and requires no inference, and thus considered a fact, which then can be used along with other evidence or facts along with circumstantial evidence, and something that is not directly observed that requires assumptions and/or inference, and is not a fact, but can be used along with other gathered evidence to try to reach conclusions.
The conclusion arrived at depend on the amount and type of evidence found, which does not necessarily lead to a conclusive fact.

Fake distinction.

A fossil is a directly observed fact. The inference from a pattern of fossils may suggest they are descended from one another.

The chemical reactions of sodium and potassium with water are facts. From their similarity we may infer that these elements belong to the same family in the Periodic Table.

The logic is exactly the same. The hypothesis is inferred from directly observed facts in both cases and further corroborating evidence can be sought, via further such facts.

 

[shunyadragon]

So we are back here again, the endless circle that evolutionist created on these forums?

No. We establishing that there is a difference between something that can be directly observed and requires no inference, and thus considered a fact, which then can be used along with other evidence or facts along with circumstantial evidence, and something that is not directly observed that requires assumptions and/or inference, and is not a fact, but can be used along with other gathered evidence to try to reach conclusions.
The conclusion arrived at depend on the amount and type of evidence found, which does not necessarily lead to a conclusive fact.

Your perpetuating a circular hamster wheel argument without a remote understanding science and how Methodological Naturalism in reality works, all because of 'Blind Faith' in a fundamentalist Creationist agenda where there is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence to support.

The evidence for evolution is represented by objective verifiable facts, that are used to propose and falsify hypothesis, and make predictions involving the evolution and abiogenesis of life, which includes the certainity that the earth, life and the universe is billions of years old. The process is the same as with all the sciences.

Your statement 'some scientists' is actually 97%+ ALL scientists (actual scientists NOT engineers and computer programmers) support the Science of evolution.

Your responses in the thread on the evolution of birds reflected what we have is a 'failure to communicate' in competent science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Fake distinction.

A fossil is a directly observed fact. The inference from a pattern of fossils may suggest they are descended from one another.

The chemical reactions of sodium and potassium with water are facts. From their similarity we may infer that these elements belong to the same family in the Periodic Table.

The logic is exactly the same. The hypothesis is inferred from directly observed facts in both cases and further corroborating evidence can be sought, via further such facts.

As I hinted at earlier, we can go waaaaaaay more consequential with this.

A bloodstain at a crime scene is a directly observed fact. That the person whose DNA matches the bloodstain's was at the crime scene is an inference.

Simply noting that a conclusion was drawn via inference doesn't diminish the strength of that conclusion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thank you very much for giving us a clear demonstration of how far some scientist are willing to go to twist logic, and use semantic tricks to dupe and delude the masses into accepting foolishness.

This is the same thing I mentioned about the deception scientist use to make their ideas accepted as scientific fact.
I am not impressed. It seems to me you are not being reasonable.

This is how it went.
You said all facts are produced by inference".
You could not support that statement, and still cant.
I provided information that shows that there are facts that are reached without inference.
The video gives one example.

I will give another.
A man has his head attached to his body.
Someone takes a sword and cuts it off.
The head is now detached from the body.
There is no need for me to infer that. I observed it. It is a fact the head was severed from the body.

If say, we found a head, one place, and a body another place, since we have not directly observed, the head being severed from the body, we may assume that the head we found was severed from the body we found. we may be wrong, or we may be right. there is not one conclusion that can be arrived at.
We now have to gather evidence - circumstantial evidence - to try to determine the facts

Your going into if I am imagining it, or if it is really happening, is just ridiculous, and deceptive imo - actually just stretching, and twisting reasoning that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

What we were talking about seemed to have concluded, but now I am wondering what we were actually talking about.
Let me refresh our memory, so that we can get back on track, and conclude.

Subject: Archaeopteryx
Observation:
Let's assume that all scientist agree that Archaeopteryx has flight feathers.
Let's also assume that this is direct evidence of flight feathers - clearly seen.

Question: Did Archaeopteryx fly? Yes or No?
This is what we were discussing.
The only way one can answer that question with a yes or no, is if they had direct evidence - which they don't.
Therefore, they use circumstantial evidence - the need for inference from all the other evidence gathered.
Direct evidence would be where one actually see Archaeopteryx flying.

Further information is found in the article I previously linked which someone refused to read. You haven't demonstrated that attitude as yet - that's left to be seen, so I will refer to it.

Origin of birds
Since the 1990s, a number of additional feathered dinosaurs have been found, providing even stronger evidence of the close relationship between dinosaurs and modern birds. The first of these were initially described as simple filamentous protofeathers, which were reported in dinosaur lineages as primitive as compsognathids and tyrannosauroids. However, feathers indistinguishable from those of modern birds were soon after found in non-avialan dinosaurs as well.

A small minority of researchers have claimed that the simple filamentous "protofeather" structures are simply the result of the decomposition of collagen fiber under the dinosaurs' skin or in fins along their backs, and that species with unquestionable feathers, such as oviraptorosaurs and dromaeosaurs are not dinosaurs, but true birds unrelated to dinosaurs. However, a majority of studies have concluded that feathered dinosaurs are in fact dinosaurs, and that the simpler filaments of unquestionable theropods represent simple feathers. Some researchers have demonstrated the presence of color-bearing melanin in the structures - which would be expected in feathers but not collagen fibers. Others have demonstrated, using studies of modern bird decomposition, that even advanced feathers appear filamentous when subjected to the crushing forces experienced during fossilization, and that the supposed "protofeathers" may have been more complex than previously thought. Detailed examination of the "protofeathers" of Sinosauropteryx prima showed that individual feathers consisted of a central quill (rachis) with thinner barbs branching off from it, similar to but more primitive in structure than modern bird feathers.

Feathered dinosaur
Among non-avian dinosaurs, feathers or feather-like integument have been discovered on dozens of genera via both direct and indirect fossil evidence. The vast majority of feather discoveries have been in coelurosaurian theropods. However, feather-like integument has also been discovered on at least three ornithischians, suggesting that proto-feathers may have been present in earlier dinosaurs.

Here are examples of what we are discussing in regard to direct and indirect / circumstantial evidence, which require assumptions and inference.
We are not discussing whether scientist are seeing an illusion or hallucinating. That's the ridiculous part of your argument.

Are we on the same page?
Have we reached an accurate conclusion on this topic then?

We're not on the same page, because, your references are old and selective in a vain attempt to justify your agenda.

Your ignoring the more modern evidence I cited in the thread concerning more recent evidence involving the evolution of birds. There are actually many more more fossils from China of feathered dinosaurs that are not capable of flight and those that have capability of primitive flight, and more intermediate fossils than your willing to admit..

Again . . .

'Messy' New Species of Dinosaur-Era Bird Discovered

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, but, as you point out Creationists and Christians do have differing views. Just so we get a understanding of what I feel so we are not arguing to find out latter we are arguing the same thing, I want to say I do believe parts of evolution to be true. But, I also believe in Creation, or at least a beginning of life from somewhere else besides earth.

The video says Creationists are 'ignorant fools' so that is what I am addressing.

Since we do not know the origin of life, divine creation cannot be eliminated as a possibility. However, the evidence accumulated so far, does imply a natural origin of life based on chemistry.