|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 04/25/2006 : 19:01:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Darwin himself knew that vital to his theory was the finding of "change" fossils for millions and millions of end species. In 1859 he was confident later geologists would find them.
This signifies a strawman, since there are very few people around who neglect all of modern biology in favor of being "strict" Darwinists.quote:
But none have been found in the nearly one hundred fifty years since 1859.
This simply ignores the status of many fossils. How does one argue successfully against this kind of head-in-the-sand nonsense? Apparently, one doesn't:Me: Archae is transitional based on the definition of the term.
Bill: No, it's just a bird with some dino-like features.
Me: Yeah, that's what a transitional fossil is, so Archae is transitional.
Bill: No, it's just a bird with some dino-like features.
Me: [Strangles self with mouse cable] The above is what this discussion looks like to me, Bill.quote:
As the book, "Tornado in a Junk Yard" puts it, " …only that the fossil record does not support evolution. This is true for every class of animal…Today we have innumerable fossils from the Earth's most ancient rocks…Yet there are no transitional fossils linking microorganisms and complex invertebrates." (Consult the book for detailed support.)
Well, geepers! That's a trick, since a two-celled organism would be a "complex invertebrate" compared to a single-celled microbe, yet you can't have a 1.5-celled creature.quote:
There have been a few fraudulent "fossils". Eagerly embraced for years until the fraud was exposed and reluctantly acknowledged. But those few frauds are the extent of history's changeover fossils.
That simply denies the facts, again. And the thing which is "reluctantly acknowledged" is that scientists, not creationists, exposed the frauds. In fact, it's so reluctantly acknowledged that this piece doesn't even mention it at all, Bill. Why not?quote:
Fossils as frauds? Surely not.
Strawman.quote:
Discovery magazine printed an interview with evolutionary biologist Alan Feduccia...
The rest of this is irrelevant, unless one wishes to make the claim that all fossil evidence - from any time period and any location - is all of questionable use because it might have been forged.
Do you wish to make such a claim, Bill? It'd be right up your alley, considering that you refuse to accept Archae as transitional because there might be a modern bird with matching features.
Hey, there might be a fish with udders somewhere, also. Or how about a horses with wings? Either one would put considerable pressure on evolutionary theory, since neither should have occured.
But in reality, science deals with the actual evidence at hand. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2006 : 19:24:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It doesn't base theories on evidence which might exist, somewhere, somewhen.
Unfortunately Dave, the creationist does not accept the "evidence", so they will say that is exactly what science does.
Herein lies the problem: no matter what "evidence" is presented, if it is contrary to the strict world view of the creationist, it is dismissed out of hand. No logic required, no contrary evidence presented or needed. Or, even better, just claim it is forgery or otherwise tainted by the vast left wing atheist conspiracy that involved traitor christians.
I beleive this is the textbook example of the term delusional, but the creationist would not accept that definition as applying to them either. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 04/25/2006 19:28:03 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2006 : 20:32:50 [Permalink]
|
Bill, I thought you said you wanted to understand the
"evolutionist" view and arguments. Then why are you constantly reverting to creationist arguments in an effort to dispute everything and anything that is posted contrary to your creationist beliefs?
Here I was hoping for some progress, but all I see from you is a refusal to try to understand our arguments, and more spin.
I feel cheated and disappointed.  |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2006 : 05:14:55 [Permalink]
|
| I still can't get over how Bill thinks that if the earth really were billions of years old and having millions of years of lifeforms on it that there would be fossils scattered all about and piled up to our chins. And yet even though animals are everywhere, if one does a nature hike, one doesn't trip all over bones and fossils. Hell, it's rare we even see a corpse of an animal, and if we do, it's still pretty fresh. Fossils are a rarity to be begin with because mother nature is darn good at corpse disposal. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2006 : 07:28:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Also, it is you who hypocritically concludes that anybody who accuses a kid of breaking a lamp with circumstantial evidence must be a creationist.
Well, if you're going to completely twist my obvious meaning around into such strawmen, I'll be done here shortly.
(bill) How did I twist your meaning? And how does that merit such drastic measures as you abandoning the discussion?
quote:
quote:
quote:
No, because there is no lack of agreement on modern birds.
Then why did you say this to me:
"it seems difficult, at best, to determine what's "fully bird" and what isn't among just the living ones."
Because the focus was on the adverb, not the noun. If today's definition of "bird" is nothing more than "warm blooded, has feathers and forelegs turned into wings," then the objection to Archaeopteryx being a transitional because it is "fully bird" is ludicrous on its face. One can fully meet the defintion of "bird" while still retaining dinosaur traits,
(bill) And I as I have repeatedly stated, so what? A bird can have, supposed, dino traits i.e. teeth, claws and yes, a long bony tail, and still be a 100% flying, perching bird and not be any where in-between dino and bird. Just look at Archaeopteryx. Just because a critter might share a, supposedly, exclusive trait from another family this does not, by default, validate dino-bird transition theory. In spite of your definition for transitional fossil.
Without question, Archae possessed a bony tail. However, what does this prove? Does it prove it came from a reptile? Some reptiles today have long tails, while others have short tails. A long, bony tail isn't any more reptilian than a short, bony tail. Alan Feduccia again points out in reference to birds coming from dinosaurs:
‘It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails."
Ann Gibbons, ‘New Feathered Fossil Brings Dinosaurs and Birds Closer', Science 274:720-721, 1996
<http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/archaeopteryx.htm>
quote:
just as the tremendous variability in living bird morphology shows. Hummingbirds, penguins and emus are all fully bird per the definition, but only one of them flies, only one of them swims, and the third is orders of magnitude heavier than the first. Being fully bird doesn't seem to do anything to disprove Archae's also meeting the definition of "transitional."
(bill) Here is the problem, your psedo-definetion for transitional fossil:
In reality, transitiona |
"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 - 04/26/2006 : 07:34:39 [Permalink]
|
Bill spoketh:
quote:
It clearly shows that it was a flying bird and for birds to fly they need bird lungs, not dino lungs. Clearly demonstrating that this was a bird and not a dino turning into a bird or a bird coming out of the dino state of being.
ROFL! You're precious! |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 04/26/2006 07:35:52 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2006 : 08:38:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I still can't get over how Bill thinks that if the earth really were billions of years old and having millions of years of lifeforms on it that there would be fossils scattered all about and piled up to our chins. And yet even though animals are everywhere, if one does a nature hike, one doesn't trip all over bones and fossils. Hell, it's rare we even see a corpse of an animal, and if we do, it's still pretty fresh. Fossils are a rarity to be begin with because mother nature is darn good at corpse disposal.
This is just the naturalists way of saying, "no bill, we have no true links clearly linking dinos to birds, or any true links for any other family to family transition for that matter." |
"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 - 04/26/2006 : 08:42:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It clearly shows that it was a flying bird and for birds to fly they need bird lungs, not dino lungs. Clearly demonstrating that this was a bird and not a dino turning into a bird or a bird coming out of the dino state of being.
Petrosaurs
Lungs? Probably reptile.
Related to birds? Not even close.
|
"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 - 04/26/2006 : 08:53:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
It clearly shows that it was a flying bird and for birds to fly they need bird lungs, not dino lungs. Clearly demonstrating that this was a bird and not a dino turning into a bird or a bird coming out of the dino state of being.
Petrosaurs
Lungs? Probably reptile.
Related to birds? Not even close.
quote:
Lungs? Probably reptile.
Related to birds? Not even close.
Where did I say that dinos could not fly/glide with dino lungs? |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2006 : 09:21:17 [Permalink]
|
For Bill to understand and admit that Archaeopteryx represents a transitional would be for Bill to admit that he is wrong and evolution happens. And that is never going to happen.
What continues to interest me is how creationists accept any science that doesn't threaten their literal take on Genesis. For example, forensic science that often relies on the same kind of evidence that evolution does is okay. They don't argue about the existence of electrons, even though no one has ever directly observed one. There is a strange disconnect there that I suppose can best be described as cognitive dissonance.
As far a science goes, the “creation scientist” puts the cart before the horse, which is antithetical to the scientific method. They work from a certainty that Genesis is literally correct, so all of their efforts are to prove that well-established and accepted theories that cast doubt on their literal take on the Bible are not correct. As though they will win by default.
In the end, all they have to offer is another form of proselytizing that targets people like Bill. They play to his ignorance of science and can seem very convincing and even official by using scientific terminology, which is a tactic used by those who push almost any kind of pseudo-science. And that puts creation science right up there with those who wish to sell you “a cure for all cancer” for example. It is the need of the buyer that makes the product sell.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2006 : 10:05:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
quote:
Also, it is you who hypocritically concludes that anybody who accuses a kid of breaking a lamp with circumstantial evidence must be a creationist.
Well, if you're going to completely twist my obvious meaning around into such strawmen, I'll be done here shortly.
How did I twist your meaning?
Isn't it obvious? Anyone who comes across a child and a broken lamp in the same room will tentatively conclude that the child broke the lamp. That's perfectly normal.
Creationists, like yourself, demand of paleontologists and biologists "true links" before they'll accept the fossil evidence, while hypocritically not demanding any sort of "true link" between child and lamp.
So you see, your objection was ridiculous. I never said that only creationists would rely on circumstantial evidence when lamp breakage occurs, I said that they've got a double-standard when it comes to what evidence they'll accept before coming to conclusions.quote:
And how does that merit such drastic measures as you abandoning the discussion?
Because if you're going to so drastically mangle my meaning and make baseless accusations from that mangled meaning, then I've got better things to do.quote:
And I as I have repeatedly stated, so what? A bird can have, supposed, dino traits i.e. teeth, claws and yes, a long bony tail, and still be a 100% flying, perching bird and not be any where in-between dino and bird.
Oh, I see where you're coming from. You think that all the "kinds" are easily categorized as "bird," or "mammal," or "dinosaur," or whatever. Of course, since those categorizations were invented by humans for reasons of convenience, and biology is much messier, it's simply wrong to think in such terms. The categories blend together; there isn't a strict line dividing one category from another.
A transitional creature is one which has traits from more than one group, Bill. Archae was a bird with dinosaur traits, and so therefore is a transitional fossil per the definition.quote:
Just look at Archaeopteryx. Just because a critter might share a, supposedly, exclusive trait from another family this does not, by default, validate dino-bird transition theory.
The theory says we should find such animals, and so therefore their presence does validate the theory.quote:
In spite of your definition for transitional fossil.
No, because of it.quote:
Without question, Archae possessed a bony tail. However, what does this prove? Does it prove it came fro |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2006 : 11:56:22 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: quote:
This is just the naturalists way of saying, "no bill, we have no true links clearly linking dinos to birds, or any true links for any other family to family transition for that matter."
Bill, that's idiotic. We've given you plenty of examples. Your responses can be summarized as twofold: 1.) That's not really a transitional fossil. 2.) There needs to be way more fossils than that. I was addressing #2. Earlier in this thread I mentioned several hominid fossils that are transitions between human and apes. Other people throughout this thread have given numerous other examples. Alas, they all fall on deaf ears, which is why many here just mock you or talk about you in third person. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/26/2006 11:58:45 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2006 : 12:10:15 [Permalink]
|
Bill you have mastered the art of moving the goal posts.
I have a question that I would very very much like to hear you answer.
What would be your conjecture of what a transitional fossil would look like if one existed between dinosaurs and birds? Could a fossil be found that would make you say, "Hmmm.. There may be something to this dino - bird relationship"?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2006 : 12:15:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Where did I say that dinos could not fly/glide with dino lungs?
Where did I claim that you did, O man of straw and ready purveyor of herrings rouge?
Did you condescend to open the link this time?
|
"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 - 04/26/2006 : 12:16:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
[br
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Isn't it obvious? Anyone who comes across a child and a broken lamp in the same room will tentatively conclude that the child broke the lamp. That's perfectly normal.
(bill) Ok, I see. The first time I read it I thought you said the creationist would not need a link to connect the kid to the broken lamp. I apologize.
quote:
Creationists, like yourself, demand of paleontologists and biologists "true links" before they'll accept the fossil evidence, while hypocritically not demanding any sort of "true link" between child and lamp.
(bill) It will take more then the fossil of a bird to convince me of the dino-bird link, yes, that is true.
quote:
A transitional creature is one which has traits from more than one group, Bill. Archae was a bird with dinosaur traits, and so therefore is a transitional fossil per the definition.
(bill) And I as I continually repeat just because Archae had teeth and some dinos have teeth, this alone, by default, does not make the thing a transition somewhere in-between dino and bird. As I showed you before that some primitive and modern birds have been shown that they had teeth while not all reptiles have teeth.
As far as the long bony tail, so what? Without question, Archae possessed a bony tail. However, what does this prove? Does it prove it came from a reptile? Some reptiles today have long tails, while others have short tails. A long, bony tail isn't any more reptilian than a short, bony tail. Alan Feduccia again points out in reference to birds coming from dinosaurs:
‘It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails."
Ann Gibbons, ‘New Feathered Fossil Brings Dinosaurs and Birds Closer', Science 274:720-721, 1996.
<http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/archaeopteryx.htm>
The claws. Archae possessed three wing claws, and dino to bird evolutionists enjoy pointing out this feature as being distinctly reptilian. However, there are a number of other modern day birds that possess claws. The touraco, an African bird, has claws on its wings, as does the hoatzin, a South American bird. Evolutionists, however, like to point out that they lose these claws when reaching adulthood. Very true, but they clearly reveal that claws are not distinctively reptilian. Furthermore, the ostrich possesses and keeps its claws on its wings throughout its life, as does the ibis and swan. But again, we must be reminded that physical characteristics which are shared among animals from separate classes or phyla does not prove a thing.
Therefore it becomes your arbitrary assumption that just because Archae has teeth, claws and a long bony tail that the only conclusion one can come to is that Archae is in transition between dino and birds as I have clearly demonstrated that teeth, claws, and long bony tails are not, by default, traits exclusively held by reptilian.
quote:
"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.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
