|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 04/26/2006 : 12:20:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
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.
quote:
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
I said true links, not transitional fossils... |
"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 : 13:16:19 [Permalink]
|
I am on an assignment with a deadline that I will probably miss -- I usually do -- and really don't have time for this nonsense. But.....
Artist's conception of an Early Devonian Agnathan (probably inaccurate -- too many fins).
Tree of Agnathans.
 
Modern Agnathans.
Lots more Agnathans
The first, bony fishes
Now do tell us again and with a little more detail of all those eel-like, jawless fishes of the ancient past....... 
|
"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 04/26/2006 13:38:52 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2006 : 15:23:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Scott
Is this theory or empirical fact?
You keep on repeating this over and over. Do you know the difference between a fact and a theory? More to the point: can you define what a scientific theory is? I doubt it, in spite of it being explained to you several times. Come on Bill, show me wrong. Show me that you know what a theory is. Show me the explanation! Show me the explanation! |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2006 : 17:23:46 [Permalink]
|
Bill evidently you missed this so I will ask again.
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26027 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2006 : 18:50:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I never brought it up but it was rather you and Filthy who pushed him and microraptor.
Baloney. Archae was brought up as just one example among several. You missed filty's "et al" and focused on just Archae.quote:
And as I have claimed that your blind faith in naturalism prevents you from seeing anything other then a critter in-between a dino and bird just because we have a fossil of a primitive bird with teeth, claws and a bony tail.
"Just because?" What a load of crap, Bill. The articles which have been presented document over two dozen features found in dinosaurs and not found in modern birds, or obviously in between the two (when it comes to the size of a feature, say). You just won't read them like you expect us to read the articles you present.quote:
Who cares if a man who has dedicated his life's work to bird evolution has said the long bony tail would make it biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails.
You know what? It doesn't matter. If Feduccia is correct, then Archae represents part of the transition between reptiles and modern birds. Of course, since dinosaurs descended from reptiles, his argument is rather academic anyway, and only distracts from the real point at hand.quote:
Those minor obsacles will be easily circumvented when the mind is already made up.
No, the major obstacle for you to overcome is to explain how one paleo-ornithologist's opinion should be given more weight than any others'. You're the one acting as though his ten-year-old statements are "slam dunks," while nearly everyone else in his field of expertise says he's wrong. Are you just rooting for the underdog, or is it that he's the only one who (slightly) agrees with you?quote:
Just because I want to completely understand the converse position to mine that does not mean that I have doubts on my position.
Who said that you did? My point was that you stated that you wanted to understand the evolutionary position on things, but most of what you've done is argue against Archae being transitional, which means that you're not even trying to do what you said you wanted to do. Knowing that most scientists consider Archae to be transitional doesn't mean that you understand the evolutionary point of view on the subject. That one fact is just a bit of trivia compared to the reasons why Archae is transitional. But you're uninterested in that.quote:
I still reject macroevolution but that does not mean I do not want to understand the marco point of view.
You reject macroevolution without understanding macroevolution, the acme of prejudice and an refusal to address the facts.quote:
And I have been asking many questions so that I can more understand your perspective and a lot of them I have not got an answer on.
Yeah, and you won't get answers from me on them because you're refusing to even try to understand something as simple as what the term "transitional fossil" means. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2006 : 04:25:42 [Permalink]
|
Let's face it, friends; the Jurassic chicken is old news. It's fossils (7 of 'em, not counting the one of a single feather) have been around long enough and been so intensly studied that there is likely little more that they can tell us. Further, Archaeopteryx lithographica has yet to be scientificly refuted in spite of creationist wishful dreaming, outright lies, and pathetic Biblical apologetics -- go to the archives of AiG and/or ICR to find examples.
What I want to know is; where and how did Noah berth Icthyostega aboard the Ark?
|
"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 04/27/2006 04:32:25 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2006 : 08:09:25 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: quote:
I said true links, not transitional fossils...
I didn't quote you, I summarized your arguments. I see you have no rational argument against what I've said, so you've resorted to a semantics argument. How quaint. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2006 : 08:21:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
What I want to know is; where and how did Noah berth Icthyostega aboard the Ark?
Hell, I want to know where the Brotosaurus, Triceratops, and Tyrannosaurus Rex fit on that small boat, much less the rest of all the land animals we now know about (and remeber we have to have 2 of each). And the food for them? And how did Noah keep these animals in check?
But that's okay, I already KNOW the answers to these questions. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2006 : 06:20:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yeah, and you won't get answers from me on them because you're refusing to even try to understand something as simple as what the term "transitional fossil" means.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I never brought it up but it was rather you and Filthy who pushed him and microraptor.
Baloney. Archae was brought up as just one example among several. You missed filty's "et al" and focused on just Archae.
(bill) I brought up Archaeoraptor on the very first post I made in this thread.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5937
Right after that Filthy posts on Archaeopteryx
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5937&whichpage=2
and 7-8 pages later here we are.
quote:
quote:
And as I have claimed that your blind faith in naturalism prevents you from seeing anything other then a critter in-between a dino and bird just because we have a fossil of a primitive bird with teeth, claws and a bony tail.
"Just because?" What a load of crap, Bill. The articles which have been presented document over two dozen features found in dinosaurs and not found in modern birds, or obviously in between the two (when it comes to the size of a feature, say). You just won't read them like you expect us to read the articles you present.
(bill) I read them and I refuted them with the conclusions and quotes from evolutionary and creationary scientist that refute it and call it a modern bird, who could fly with the best of them. You just brush this off with a hand wave and then refer me to the 10-12, or more, links that get tossed in my direction.
quote:
quote:
Who cares if a man who has dedicated his life's work to bird evolution has said the long bony tail would make it biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails.
You know what? It doesn't matter. If Feduccia is correct, then Archae represents part of the transition between reptiles and modern birds. Of course, since dinosaurs descended from reptiles, his argument is rather academic anyway, and only distracts from the real point at hand.
(bill) No, it does matter. The point at hand is Archaeopteryx, which Filthy brought up as a dino-bird transition, and you defend it vigorously. That is what we have been/are discussing.
quote:
obstacle for you to overcome is to explain how one paleo-ornithologist's opinion should be given more weight than any others |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2006 : 07:07:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
What I want to know is; where and how did Noah berth Icthyostega aboard the Ark?
Hell, I want to know where the Brotosaurus, Triceratops, and Tyrannosaurus Rex fit on that small boat, much less the rest of all the land animals we now know about (and remeber we have to have 2 of each). And the food for them? And how did Noah keep these animals in check?
But that's okay, I already KNOW the answers to these questions.
quote:
(and remeber we have to have 2 of each)
There were more then two for many of them. Go back and reread your Bible... |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2006 : 07:08:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Bill wrote: quote:
I said true links, not transitional fossils...
I didn't quote you, I summarized your arguments. I see you have no rational argument against what I've said, so you've resorted to a semantics argument. How quaint.
It is not semantics, just ask Dave. |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26027 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2006 : 07:38:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I brought up Archaeoraptor on the very first post I made in this thread.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5937
Right after that Filthy posts on Archaeopteryx
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5937&whichpage=2
and 7-8 pages later here we are.
Right. Archaeoraptor isn't a transitional fossil, and you've ignored all the other transitional fossils between reptiles and birds except Archaeopteryx. Thanks for agreeing with me.quote:
I read them and I refuted them with the conclusions and quotes from evolutionary and creationary scientist that refute it and call it a modern bird, who could fly with the best of them. You just brush this off with a hand wave and then refer me to the 10-12, or more, links that get tossed in my direction.
No, your refutation is apparently against an argument that Archae wasn't a bird, which is an argument that nobody here is making.quote:
No, it does matter. The point at hand is Archaeopteryx, which Filthy brought up as a dino-bird transition, and you defend it vigorously. That is what we have been/are discussing.
And if it's a reptile-bird transitional fossil, it's still a transitional fossil.quote:
Yet another strawman. (yawn) I brought up several evolutionary scientists who refuted Archaeopteryx as dino-bird transition, of which I have continued to quote Dr. Alan Feduccia the most, as the man has dedicated much of his life to the topic and has authored the encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds (1999). I could bring up many more who reject Archae as a dino-bird but you will dismiss them simply for being a creationist and for no other reason. (sigh) So your strawman that I have one scientist on my side has been concluded to be just that, a strawman.
Right, I should have said, "...or is it that he's the one of a very few paleo-ornithologists who (slightly) agrees with you?" Will you answer the question now?quote:
And who cares if one of his statements is ten years old? Nothing has changed on Archaeopteryx since then.
You're in denial of the facts.quote:
Also, here is what he had to say just three years ago:
None of which addresses the question of whether or not Archae was transitional.quote:
These, definitely, are not light accusations.
No, they're not, but they've got nothing to do with Archae and its status as a transitional fossil.quote:
Although accusing no one in particular, Feduccia is putting his good name and credibility on the line by making such profound statements.
But it's irrelevant, so who cares?quote:
Actually, he did specifically mention the prestigious journal Nature, saying how they "don't require specimens to be authenticated." Indeed, not a light accusation!
So, can you explain how that accusation affects the status of Archae as a transitional fossil?quote:
So you see, Dave, your strawman that I had outdated quotes falls on deaf ears as well.
It wasn't a strawman. The Feduccia quotes referencing Archae in particular were ten years old. Lots of stuff has changed since then. By assuming that Feduccia hasn't revised his opinion on the matter one iota, you're simply guessing that he's as dogmatic in his opinions as you are.quote:
Depends what you mean by "most scientists"? You construct the strawman that only one scientist rejects Archaeopteryx as a bird-dino example and his quote is outdated. How absurd.
Yes, how absurd, since his statements make it clear that he thinks that birds descended from tree-climbing reptiles, and in that context Archae would be considered a reptile-bird transitional fossil.quote:
"The most striking feature of Archaeopteryx is its well-developed feathered wings. These wings are not significantly different in size and shape from those of modern birds such as magpies or coucals, and they give every indication that Archaeopteryx was a flying bird. The feathers also appear to be strong evidence of flight ability . . . . In Archaeopteryx the feathers are remarkably similar to those of modern birds. They have a stiffened central shaft to transmit aerodynamic forces generated over the feather vanes to the body, and this would not be expected if the feathers had no mechanical function. More significantly, the feather shaft is set asymmetrically against the vanes of the feather. This permits the feather to distort optimally to compensate for bending in flight due to aerodynamic loads, and is important in both gliding and flapping flight. . . vane asymmetry is characteristic of modern flying birds, but the feathers of most modern flightless birds are symmetrical."
Some evolutionists today still wish to hold onto the idea that Archae could not fly or was a poor flyer, but the physical evidence strongly contradicts such a notion.
Yes, yes, yes. You keep quoting this, but saying "Archae is a transitional fossil" doesn't mean (or imply) that Archae couldn't fly like a freakin' eagle. That's the strawman being offered by your source, Bill. Do you even have any evidence that "some evolutionists today still wish to hold onto the idea that Archae could not fly?" I don't see any such evidence anywhere but in creationist tracts.quote:
Of course AF is still my favorite to quote:
Of course he is, but the fact of the matter is that p |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2006 : 07:41:49 [Permalink]
|
The Evolution of Flight quote:
(bill) I read them and I refuted them with the conclusions and quotes from evolutionary and creationary scientist that refute it and call it a modern bird, who could fly with the best of them. You just brush this off with a hand wave and then refer me to the 10-12, or more, links that get tossed in my direction.
How many of them are named, "Steve?"
Some notable "Steves"
|
"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 - 04/28/2006 : 07:59:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
There were more then two for many of them. Go back and reread your Bible...
Thanks for helping my case!
So, where on that tiny boat (that we know the dimensions of) did Noah put more than 2 brotosaurus, T-rex, etc...plus the food?
Maybe your god shrunk them down? Doesn't say that in your bible, so that's not an option.
Or perhaps the sizes are incorrect...we have totally screwed it up based on the fossils, right?
Or none of those animals really existed, the fossiles were all fabricated?
Or Satan put those fossils in the ground to test our faith?
Or god put those fossils in the ground to test our faith?
I eagerly await your explanation. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 04/28/2006 08:07:00 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2006 : 10:32:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yeah, and you won't get answers from me on them because you're refusing to even try to understand something as simple as what the term "transitional fossil" means.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I brought up Archaeoraptor on the very first post I made in this thread.
<http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5937>
Right after that Filthy posts on Archaeopteryx
<http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5937&whichpage=2>
and 7-8 pages later here we are.
Right. Archaeoraptor isn't a transitional fossil,
(bill) Exactly. It is a fake TF which is what I stated from the beginning.
quote:
and you've ignored all the other transitional fossils between reptiles and birds
(bill) If your referring to mircroraptor I certainly did not ignore him.
quote:
except Archaeopteryx
(bill) Of course I did not ignore him as he was advanced by Filthy and you as a poster child for dino-bird transition.
quote:
Thanks for agreeing with me.
(bill) No problem.
quote:
quote:
I read them and I refuted them with the conclusions and quotes from evolutionary and creationary scientist that refute it and call it a modern bird, who could fly with the best of them. You just brush this off with a hand wave and then refer me to the 10-12, or more, links that get tossed in my direction.
No, your refutation is apparently against an argument that Archae wasn't a bird, which is an argument that nobody here is making.
(bill) Nope. It was a refutation of your willingness to rubber stamp the thing as transitional between dino and bird in spite of the fact that many scientists fully rejected and fully refuted the fact that this was a dino to bird transition and have correctly labeled it as 100% bird. Your insistence on calling it a TF, simply because you think it has some strictly reptilian traits, does not rubber stamp it transitional, except for in your world.
quote:
quote:
No, it does matter. The point at hand is Archaeopteryx, which Filthy brought up as a dino-bird transition, and you defend it vigorously. That is what we have been/are discussing.
And if it's a reptile-bird transitional fossil, it's still a transitional fossil.
(bill) But if it is not a transition from rep to bird or dino to bird then it never was a TF at all.
quote:
quote:
Yet another strawman. (yawn) I brought up several evolutionary scientists who refuted Archaeopteryx as dino-bird transition, of which I have continued to quote Dr. Alan Feduccia the most, as the man has dedicated much of his life to the topic and has authored the encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds (1999). I could bring up many more who reject Archae as a dino-bird but you will dismiss them simply for being a creationist and for no other reason. (sigh) So your strawman that I have one scientist on my side has been concluded to be just that, a strawman.
Right, I should have said, "...or is it that he's the one of a very few paleo-ornithologists who (slightly) agrees with you?"
(bill) No. You should have said that, "he was one of a few evolutionary scientists that have rejected it amongst many creationist scientists that have rejected it and so I am sorry for trying to falsely portray that as one scientist."
And since when does a majority equal truth, by default?
quote:
Will you answer the question now?
(bill) Which question?
quote:
quote:
And who cares if one of his statements is ten years old? Nothing has changed on Archaeopteryx since then.
You're in denial of the facts.
(bill) What facts? Has the fossil evolved since then?
quote:
quote:
These, definitely, are not light accusations.
No, they're not, but they've got nothing to do with Archae and its status as a transitional fossil.
(bill) They were not intended for Archae as the thing was determined to be a modern bird.
quote:
quote:
Actually, he did specifically mention the prestigious journal Nature, saying how they "don't require specimens to be authenticated." Indeed, not a light accusation!
So, can you explain how that accusation affects the status of Archae as a transitional foss |
"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 04/28/2006 10:36:23 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
