|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 05/03/2006 : 07:26:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
filthy - picture B has a bunch of question marks, I'm sure Bill will take notice.
And Marf, you don't have enough fossils. You need to account for every second of every day from now to 60 million years ago with a fossil before Bill will accept the theory.
quote:
And Marf, you don't have enough fossils. You need to account for every second of every day from now to 60 million years ago with a fossil before Bill will accept the theory.
(bill) LOL. I ask you to show me the procession of fossils that would best show the graduating steps of macroevolution if one wanted to convince others of the light that they have seen and you reply by stating that I insist that you fully account for the last 60 millions years. Oh that is rich... |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 07:42:32 [Permalink]
|
Glad you liked it. The procession has been shown and you dismiss it because it is too "holy". (Thank you, I'll be here all week).
So what will it take? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 05/03/2006 07:47:33 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 07:54:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) Can you go a little deeper into this "known record"? Basicly what know record are you refering to? And what did the writings of these scholars have to say in regurads to this known record?
Do your own research and stop being such an ass. If you can't, as you claim, figure out what "known Record" means in the context I used, you are either trying to jerk my leg or are really stupid.
Which?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 08:32:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
If you'd prefer to have a conversation about naturalism in general (both philosophical and pragmatic), then start a new thread (in which I'm sure you will be asked to describe any form of functional non-naturalistic science).
I have already had this discussion and the conclusion was that nobody has a clue as to where the primorial entities came from.
Do you have any idea how confused this sounds?quote:
But the latest hypothesis was that a asteroid shuttle system operating between here and Mars may have had something to do with it.
That's factually incorrect, but I can see how you believe such a statement.quote:
So I see no need to hash that out all over again simple on a new thread this time.
I wasn't talking about Darwin's primordial entities, I was talking about naturalism.quote:
Really? So Filthy advances microraptor as a TF, of which you supported and then I offer information that this fossil came from the same area as a previously faked fossil, as well as quoting a expert and life long devotee to bird evolution, who says that it is beyond doubt that many other fakes exist and they are often hard to spot, even for experts, and this does not concern you at all? I am not making the statement that micro is fake or real. I am making the statement that, based off the eyewitness testimony of a bird evolution expert and the fact that it has all ready been discovered to have happened at least once, that it has to be considered a possibility. And the fact that you just dismiss this as a possibility, with nothing more then a hand wave, is one reason that I accuse you of rubber stamping anything you want as a TF.
Once again, you are confused. I never dismissed the possibility that there are fake fossils out there. They just no longer have as much an impact upon reptile/bird evolution as you think they'd have, because there is other evidence besides fossils which now illuminates the theory.quote:
So tell me what we would have known about Archaeoraptor, Archaeopteryx, or Microraptor without any fossils?
The very question is a misrepresentation of what I said.quote:
I never said any such thing. I simply hold the position that, based on the eyewitness testimony of a leading bird evolutionist expert and the fact that it all ready has happened, that it must be considered in the realm of possibility. And I hold the position that it is absurd for you to dismiss, with a hand wave, the expert and the fact that it has already happened, and assume that none are fake and say that it does not even concern you.
I never assumed that no fossils are fake, Bill. I just reject the idea (that you appear to hold) that they're of primary importance for evolutionary theory anymore.quote:
This is why I accuse you of rubber stamping your examples. I think you just don't want to have to be concerned with this reality so you just ignore it.
Bill, if you think that all of evolutionary theory is currently pegged to what fossils we've got, that's your ignorance showing, not mine.quote:
I thought science needed to go through rigors of scrutiny before empirical conclusions can be arrived upon?
Are you saying that the theory of evolution has somehow escaped scrutiny?quote:
You simply ignore the scrutiny and hold fast to your preconceived conclusions. That is not science but rather indoctrination.
What scrutiny of which fossils do you think would change my mind about reptile/bird evolution?quote:
Show me where AF's position has changed. You have just assumed that I did not check, did you not?
You haven't brought forth any evidence that suggests you have, so why should I give you the benefit of a doubt?quote:
Why, has something changed on the Archaeopteryx fossil since then?
The whole field of paleo-ornithology has changed in the last 10 years.quote:
And should I check out every source where the quote is 2 years old or older, how about 6 months? Do you do this? Let's take your beloved Talk Origins for an example. Here are the references they list from the latest Filthy link offered up:
Invalid comparison. Your creationist sources are well-known for their quote mining, intentional distortions and outright lies about evolution and evolutionary scientists.quote:
I was an agnostic first and then a Christian second.
When did you become a virulent evolution denier? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 09:59:52 [Permalink]
|
Bill you keep citing Alan Feduccia as a source for your argument so if I understand you correctly you agree with his contention that birds evolved from Thecodontia, for example:
and not Saurischia, for example:
I don't agree. I think that birds did evolve from Saurischia.
By the way if you do not think birds evolved at all the what then fuck are you citing the opinions of an evolutionist for. I think (depending on which religious sect you are in) you may go to hell simply for using the opinions of a satanist evolutionist in a discussion. You know how easily God gets pissed off...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 10:33:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Bill you keep citing Alan Feduccia as a source for your argument so if I understand you correctly you agree with his contention that birds evolved from Thecodontia, for example:
and not Saurischia, for example:
I don't agree. I think that birds did evolve from Saurischia.
By the way if you do not think birds evolved at all the what then fuck are you citing the opinions of an evolutionist for. I think (depending on which religious sect you are in) you may go to hell simply for using the opinions of a satanist evolutionist in a discussion. You know how easily God gets pissed off...
quote:
Bill you keep citing Alan Feduccia as a source for your argument so if I understand you correctly you agree with his contention that birds evolved from Thecodontia, for example:
(bill) Nope. You don't understand correctly.
quote:
I don't agree. I think that birds did evolve from Saurischia.
(bill) What do you base this on?
quote:
By the way if you do not think birds evolved at all the what then fuck are you citing the opinions of an evolutionist for.
(bill) I do not think nor have I ever said that birds do not evolve at all. And even if I did believe that birds do not evolve at all why should that bar me from quoting an evolutionists?
quote:
I think (depending on which religious sect you are in) you may go to hell simply for using the opinions of a satanist evolutionist in a discussion. You know how easily God gets pissed off...
(bill) Well lucky for me that my eternal destiny is not based on your thinking or lack there of. (insert gay and childish symbol here)
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 05/03/2006 10:35:07 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 12:04:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) Well lucky for me that my eternal destiny is not based on your thinking or lack there of. (insert gay and childish symbol here)
Destiny.....?
"Pederpes finneyae is an early tetrapod described by Ms. Clack in Nature 418, 72-77 (4 July 2002). It dates to the Early Carboniferous (348-344 Myr) from near Dumbarton, Scotland. The map of the holotype (drawing below) shows the preserved elements. Elements appearing on the reverse side are shown in grey."
Tetrapod transitionals
I don't put this stuff up just for you, Bill. I realized long, long ago that I'd never remove the blinkers from the eyes of any dedicated creationist; not even with a Holy Writ. So it matters little, really, if you read it all or not. I post it mostly for the other members who might be interested and for the covey of lurkers scuttling about in the SFN underbrush. As it is seldom commented upon, I don't know what reception it's getting. But there you have it none the less. This latest one's an interesting site though, yes?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 05/03/2006 12:09:11 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 13:28:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) I do not think nor have I ever said that birds do not evolve at all.
My mistake bill. Perhaps it would be a little easier to have a discussion with you if you could state your position. As of now you are all over the board. I know that you are some type of Christian and appear to disbelieve certain fields or areas of science. Do you have any defined boundries on what you believe or do they move depending on the point you wish to make?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 02:00:32 [Permalink]
|
Still waiting:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bill:
Can you go into some of this evidence? I am very interested as to how lungs and limbs, to be used on land, get developed by natural selection in the water before the critter is even on land. To me it seems like that would take forethought and design?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the first land creatures were so well "designed", why are they extinct? In fact, if you are proposing that life is designed, how do you explain the many examples of really bad design? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 03:35:44 [Permalink]
|
Ok, lemmee see if I can figger this out.... Ah-hah!!
By the scaberous scrotum of Satan, that's easier'n fallin' off a log! Thanks Doc.... 
quote:
Bill's problem, indeed the problem suffered by most if not all creationists, is that he expects the Theory of Evolution to simply be laid out like a book and read page by page, chapter by chapter, dog-ear the corners of the pages to keep place, and return it to the library when finished. It all has to be there, every fossil of every animal that ever lived, and all of it documented extensively and instantly. It must never change as as new information comes forth. In fact, there can be no new info because, like the Babble Bible, it must be complete in and of itself.
What utter nonsense!
I'm a bit disappointed in that I was expecting some comment on this as well as the fossil sequence shown and it's excellent link. quote:
Research on the Origin and Early Evolution of Whales (Cetacea)
Introduction
The mammalian order Cetacea is divided into three suborders: (1) Oligocene to Recent Odontoceti or 'toothed whales'— living today; (2) Oligocene to Recent Mysticeti or 'baleen whales'— living today; and (3) older and more primitive Eocene Archaeoceti or 'archaic whales'— which evolved from land mammals and gave rise to later odontocetes and mysticetes. My research on the origin and early evolution of whales is focused on archaeocetes. I have been fortunate to work with many colleagues on this in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and India, (see co-authors in the publication list below). The stages of early whale evolution that we have documented are shown here in Figure 1. We have found and collected virtually complete skeletons of middle-to-late Eocene Basilosauridae (Dorudon and Basilosaurus), exceptionally complete skeletons of middle Eocene Protocetidae (especially Rodhocetus and Artiocetus), and a partial skull of earliest middle Eocene Pakicetidae (Pakicetus). Recovery of diagnostic ankle bones in the skeletons of primitive protocetids during our field work in Pakistan in 2000 confirmed their derivation from Artiodactyla (the mammalian order including cows, deer, hippos, etc.), and showed convincingly that whales did not originate from mesonychid condylarths as Van Valen hypothesized (and we had expected).
Oh well, what the hell..... But I must ask: was Elomeryx aboard the Ark? And if so, why? Couldn't it swim -- it's a whale ancestor, after all...
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 06:19:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Do you have any idea how confused this sounds?
(bill) I am sure you will tell me.
quote:
quote:
But the latest hypothesis was that a asteroid shuttle system operating between here and Mars may have had something to do with it.
That's factually incorrect, but I can see how you believe such a statement.
(bill) How so?
quote:
I wasn't talking about Darwin's primordial entities, I was talking about naturalism.
(Bill) OK. Then what does naturalism say on the origin of Darwin's primordial entities?
quote:
Once again, you are confused. I never dismissed the possibility that there are fake fossils out there. They just no longer have as much an impact upon reptile/bird evolution as you think they'd have, because there is other evidence besides fossils which now illuminates the theory.
(bill) Like what for instance?
quote:
quote:
So tell me what we would have known about Archaeoraptor, Archaeopteryx, or Microraptor without any fossils?
The very question is a misrepresentation of what I said.
(bill) How so?
quote:
I never assumed that no fossils are fake, Bill. I just reject the idea (that you appear to hold) that they're of primary importance for evolutionary theory anymore.
(bill) Could you please expand on this a little for me? So what are the more primary importances of bird evolution now?
quote:
Bill, if you think that all of evolutionary theory is currently pegged to what fossils we've got, that's your ignorance showing, not mine.
(bill) It is not pegged on what fossils you've got or the lack there of, however, that is the topic of this thread. I find the operating mechanism theory of ToE to be just as ridicules for example.
quote:
What scrutiny of which fossils do you think would change my mind about reptile/bird evolution?
(bill) None. Your mind is already made up, but that was not my point. You supported the notion that microraptor was undoubtedly a TF for reptile/bird evolution. I simply pointed out that it was absurd for you to not even consider the notion that the thing could easily have been faked considering the source and location of which it was obtained and the previous shady history surrounding the entire discipline in this area.
quote:
quote:
Show me where AF's position has changed. You have just assumed that I did not check, did you not?
You haven't brought forth any evidence that suggests you have, so why should I give you the benefit of a doubt?
(bill) You never brought forth any evidence that suggested that I didn't. It was never my accusation to begin with but rather yours. I offer a fully sourced quote and you challenge me with the notion that AF may have changed his mind since then so you will not except the quote unless I can prove that he still holds his quoted position, which would prove wrong your fabricated notion that I never checked, which is backed up by nothing, that he must have changed his mind. Of course you assume that I have not checked up on this, but the only way you could prove that notion was to demonstrate that AF had in fact changed his position from what I quoted. You and your endless word games and semantics are a real treat, Dave.
quote:
The whole field of paleo-ornithology has changed in the last 10 years.
(bill) I did not ask about the whole field of paleo-ornithology, but rather I asked what changed on the Archaeopteryx fossil which would have caused AF to revise his conclusion? Here is where you put up or shut up, Dave. And then your silly game of semantics can end.
quote:
Invalid comparison. Your creationist sources are well-known for their quote mining, intentional distortions and outright lies about evolution and evolutionary scientists.
(bill) 1. What does this have to do with checking out the authenticity of older quotes? 2. I was not even quoting a creationist but rather was quoting a naturalist who advances ToE. More of Dave's smoke and mirrors...
Dave: How can you know AF still holds to that position which you quoted him on?
Bill: Can you provide any information that this is no longer his position, even though he was quoted and sourced as holding this position? And do you yourself practice what you preach and validate any source or quote over 1 month old to be sure the source or quote has not changed their mine?
Dave: Bill, creationist sources are well-known for their quote mining, intentional distortions and outright lies about evolution and evolutionary scientists.
Bill: What are you talking about? I quoted an evolutionist and asked if you, or any of your sources that you reference, fact check every quote or source that is more then 2 weeks old to validate the position has not changed? Why not? You seem to insist that I do it.
Dave: Bill, creationis |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 07:16:45 [Permalink]
|
Homo habilis
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 07:29:16 [Permalink]
|
Homo Dufus
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 07:56:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Homo Dufus
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 18:57:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Bill you keep citing Alan Feduccia as a source for your argument so if I understand you correctly you agree with his contention that birds evolved from Thecodontia, for example:
and not Saurischia, for example:
I don't agree. I think that birds did evolve from Saurischia.
By the way if you do not think birds evolved at all the what then fuck are you citing the opinions of an evolutionist for. I think (depending on which religious sect you are in) you may go to hell simply for using the opinions of a satanist evolutionist in a discussion. You know how easily God gets pissed off...
hot damn! check out the teeth on that dino!!!
what are the purpose of those?
(the Saurischia.) |
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
