PDA

View Full Version : Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Nineveh
May 13th, 2004, 05:57 PM
Coral Ridge Ministries is teaming up with the Creation Studies Institute (CSI) to launch a national creation outreach. CSI’s Executive Director Tom DeRosa, an educator and creation studies authority, has spent many years assembling information, contacts, and artifacts in his study of evidences for creation. CSI’s chief aim is to defend and promote creation and to expose the lie of evolution.

Full Story (http://www.coralridge.org/impact/2004_May_Pg1.htm)


Cool :)

Dimo
May 13th, 2004, 09:32 PM
Nineveh posted:

Coral Ridge Ministries is teaming up with the Creation Studies Institute (CSI) to launch a national creation outreach. CSI’s Executive Director Tom DeRosa, an educator and creation studies authority, has spent many years assembling information, contacts, and artifacts in his study of evidences for creation. CSI’s chief aim is to defend and promote creation and to expose the lie of evolution.

Dimo:

Nineveh, why don't they just send their research through the peer review process set up for the scientific community at large?

Is it because people who are not commited to your specific religious paradigm would not come to this conclusion?

Evolution is not a lie. You accept "micro" evolution. If people want to overturn the concept of "macro" evolution, they should focus on finding tangible evidence for one or multiple mechanisms that stop many "micro" evolutions from becoming "macro" evolution. Swearing an oath to an antiquated and static religious paradigm is not science.

I think that whoever made the qoute you posted to is a liar.

Jukia
May 14th, 2004, 05:36 AM
More creationist nonsense. I continue to say that if creationism has such scientific background and evidence then confront "The Man" head on. Do the research, publish in peer reviewed journals, if the evidence is on your side the scientific community will embrace it. There is no conspiracy of science, no God-less conspiracy.

There should be enough $ in the Christian fundamentalist movement to support some basic research (there was enough to elect W). do it but do it right, not this nonsensical, simply anecdotal, stuff.

Nineveh
May 14th, 2004, 07:56 AM
I sorta figured none of the ToErs would have any kind word of congrats. Thanks guys :)

Turbo
May 14th, 2004, 10:37 AM
I think it's cool, Nineveh. I'm fond of Coral Ridge Ministries.

Jukia
May 14th, 2004, 11:39 AM
The site referenced makes a statement about mammoth bones found in FL with the claim that they are only 3-4000 years old. Any further info on that claim? Who made that determination and how?

Swordsman
May 14th, 2004, 12:06 PM
Turbo, you do know that Dr. James Kennedy is a Presby and denounces the OV, right?

Nineveh
May 14th, 2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Jukia

The site referenced makes a statement about mammoth bones found in FL with the claim that they are only 3-4000 years old. Any further info on that claim? Who made that determination and how?

Did you bother looking for CSI's home page (http://www.csinfo.org/)? Perhaps your questions will be better answered there than the press release for the outreach.

Jukia
May 14th, 2004, 12:54 PM
I have attempted to e-mail for some additional info but cannot get through to this outfit. I found nothing on the home page that provided any more specific info re these 3-4000 year old Mammoth bones from FL.
If my history serves when dealing with creationists who make paleontological (did I spell that right?) claims, I will never hear back from them even if I did have a good address.
So I called De Rosa and spoke with him. He said they did not do any radiometric dating, that the age was an estimate based on electron microscopy studies, that nothing is published, that the samples may now be contaminated.
Not a very respectable basis for suggesting an age.

One Eyed Jack
May 14th, 2004, 03:40 PM
What would you consider a respectable basis?

Freak
May 14th, 2004, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

I think it's cool, Nineveh. I'm fond of Corel Ridge Ministries. D. James Kennedy isn't fond of open theism-- a wacky idea you embrace & promote. :down:

Dimo
May 14th, 2004, 04:29 PM
Nineveh posted:

I sorta figured none of the ToErs would have any kind word of congrats. Thanks guys

Dimo:

I did not have a kind response because the qoute you used and the approach of most of these folks in general is not kind to others. This is exemplified by this segment of the qoute:

"CSI’s chief aim is to defend and promote creation and to expose the lie of evolution."

If you want to take the high road about attitudes try changing yours as well, by not refferencing inflammatory language such as this.

Nineveh
May 14th, 2004, 06:18 PM
Dimo,
Sorry you didn't like the wording of their announcement. Would you have felt better had they used the word "fabrication"?

Stratnerd
May 14th, 2004, 07:02 PM
N -

Perhaps you can provide a recent example where scientist knew the truth but presented lies.... and was uncovered by creationists and not fellow scientists.

Nineveh
May 14th, 2004, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

N -

Perhaps you can provide a recent example where scientist knew the truth but presented lies.... and was uncovered by creationists and not fellow scientists.


...Funny how you qualified that lol :)

Stratnerd
May 14th, 2004, 07:17 PM
should I take that as "ain't got none"?

I always figured that creationists were a useless bunch but I would like to see example of were they did something of value.

Dimo
May 14th, 2004, 09:37 PM
Nineveh, yes then I can change what I posted from liar to fabricator.

Turbo
May 15th, 2004, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Freak

D. James Kennedy isn't fond of open theism So? Knight is an open theist and you are not. Are you therefore not fond of TOL or Knight?

Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. Titus 3:10-11

the LORD hates...one who sows discord among brethren. Proverbs 6:16, 20.


I assume Dr. Kennedy is a Calvinist, since he's the pastor of a Presbyterian church. But unlike many other Christian radio programs, I don't pick up any overtly Calvinistic doctrine on "Truths That Transform." If it weren't for the name of his church, I wouldn't know whether he were a Calvinist or an Armenian.

bob b
May 15th, 2004, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

So? Knight is an open theist and you are not. Are you therefore not fond of TOL or Knight?

Your logic is quite flawed. One can disagree with a doctrine or theory without transferring that disagreement to a lack of fondness for an individual. Of course many people do hate, or at a minimum show a lack of fondness toward, those who disagree with their theoretical ideas. This is easily seen here by noticing the venom directed toward me simply because I happen to believe that what is written in the Bible, and what has traditionally been what people have understood it to be saying, is true.



Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. Titus 3:10-11

the LORD hates...one who sows discord among brethren. Proverbs 6:16, 20.

I suggest you follow this advice in addition to giving it to others.


I assume Dr. Kennedy is a Calvinist, since he's the pastor of a Presbyterian church. But unlike many other Christian radio programs, I don't pick up any overtly Calvinistic doctrine on "Truths That Transform." If it weren't for the name of his church, I wouldn't know whether he were a Calvinist or an Armenian.

The idea that a person must agree with all doctrines of a denomination in order to be a member has been out of favor in America for quite some time now. I doubt if many Christian consider the views of Christian leaders to be as infallible as Catholics do regarding their Pope, although some might. Calvin had many good ideas, but some were better than others. I am sure Dr. Kennedy knows and agrees with this.

If I didn't know better I might think you are deliberately sowing discord among the brothers. :D

Turbo
May 15th, 2004, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by bob b

Your logic is quite flawed. One can disagree with a doctrine or theory without transferring that disagreement to a lack of fondness for an individual. ...or that individual's overall ministry. That was precisely my point. Did you see post 11?



I suggest you follow this advice in addition to giving it to others.I think you misunderstood my post. But maybe I misunderstood yours. In what way do you think I'm sowing discord among the brethren?

Jukia
May 15th, 2004, 09:01 AM
Jack: What would be respectable? Peer review, not letting the site be overrun by the general public and tourists (that was another excuse cited by DeRosa when I spoke with him), doing the research properly. Get the funding up front to do research.
The government won't give you any $ cause of the godless scientific conspiracy? the raise the $ from fundamentalisits. There seem to be enough of those to elect the moron in the White House, gotta be some big $ out ther to defeat the evolutionsists.

But no, we make some half-baked claims based on poor science and little evidence. If you could prove that there were mammoths in Florida within the last 4000 years I suspect that would be major scientific news, but you (meaning creationists) so you put out a press release that makes those who already believe happy but does not even stand the scrutiny of a 10 minute phone call.

Give me a break, Jack, even you know this is garbage science.

Poly
May 15th, 2004, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by bob b

I suggest you follow this advice in addition to giving it to others.
If I didn't know better I might think you are deliberately sowing discord among the brothers. :D

bob b, I think you misunderstand what is going on here. Freak makes it a point to get members around here stirred up for the sole purpose of seeing all the drama that goes along with this which has been evident time and again in reading his posts. He is not consistant in his attitude. As you may or may not know, Freak might go for quite a while seeming to be in support of a particular ministry for some of the good that he sees in it and then does an "about-face" and makes it his mission to slam it, hijacking threads having nothing to do with it. He does this, knowing that it will get a rise out of members on here who highly support it. He's also been known to make a huge ordeal over a member being banned simply to mix things up in hopes that a big drama will be started over it. It is evident that he enjoys this. This is why it has been necessary at times to point out this flaw in Freak which is what Turbo is doing. If one reads Turbos posts on here it is clear that he has no desire to sew discord among brethren as Freak does.

Freak
May 15th, 2004, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

So? Knight is an open theist and you are not. Are you therefore not fond of TOL or Knight?
I'm quite fond of Knight and TOL. You don't know what you speak of. You're simply spreading lies about me. I have supported TOL for years and have participated on TOL for years. I simply find open theism that you embrace as heresy, that's all.

Freak
May 15th, 2004, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by bob b to turbo

Your logic is quite flawed. One can disagree with a doctrine or theory without transferring that disagreement to a lack of fondness for an individual. Exactly. :up:

One Eyed Jack
May 15th, 2004, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Jukia

Jack: What would be respectable? Peer review, not letting the site be overrun by the general public and tourists (that was another excuse cited by DeRosa when I spoke with him), doing the research properly.

Define proper research.


Get the funding up front to do research.
The government won't give you any $ cause of the godless scientific conspiracy?

Sounds like you're just trying to set up a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation. You'd be screaming bloody murder over what they were doing with your tax dollars if they did that.


the raise the $ from fundamentalisits.

At least we're not stealing your money to fund our research.


There seem to be enough of those to elect the moron in the White House, gotta be some big $ out ther to defeat the evolutionsists.

We don't need money to defeat you. We have the truth on our side. All the money in the world isn't going to change that.


But no, we make some half-baked claims based on poor science and little evidence.

Believe me, I'm well aware of the half-baked claims made by evolutionists based on poor science and little evidence. And speaking of evidence, I don't suppose you'd want to provide us with some of this evidence for evolution that you claim is so overwhelming?


If you could prove that there were mammoths in Florida within the last 4000 years I suspect that would be major scientific news, but you (meaning creationists) so you put out a press release that makes those who already believe happy but does not even stand the scrutiny of a 10 minute phone call.

To be frank, Jukia, I don't believe you really called them, and even if you did, I don't think you could have debunked their arguments with a year of time to prepare your case and a team of scientists helping you, much less ten minutes all by your lonesome.


Give me a break, Jack, even you know this is garbage science.

What do you know about science? Don't think we've failed to notice how little you've actually contributed to these discussions. Mostly you just sit on the sidelines and jeer.

Turbo
May 15th, 2004, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Freak

I'm quite fond of Knight and TOL. I know. That's why I used them in my analogy.


You're simply spreading lies about me.What lie(s)?


I have supported TOL for years and have participated on TOL for years. I simply find open theism that you embrace as heresy, that's all. And I endorse Coral Ridge Ministries. What's the difference?

Freak
May 15th, 2004, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Turbo
And I endorse Corel Ridge Ministries. What's the difference? That's strange. You embrace a ministry that denounces the very theology you hold so dear.

Turbo
May 15th, 2004, 08:32 PM
I missed this post before:

Originally posted by Swordsman

Turbo, you do know that Dr. James Kennedy is a PresbyYes.
and denounces the OV, right? I figured as much. I'll ask you what I asked Freak:

So?



I particularly like Kennedy's presentations on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and Biblical Creation. He takes a strong stance against abortion and sexual immorality. He also has many great guest speakers. I think Pam Stenzel is my favorite. I also like Joshua Harris. (Yes, I know.;)) There have been many others; I just don't remember their names.

Turbo
May 15th, 2004, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Freak

That's strange. You embrace a ministry that denounces the very theology you hold so dear. CRM does not denounce the resurrection, the divine inspiration of Scripture, the six day creation, the great deluge, absolute moral truth...


It's no more strange than your support of TOL. (That is to say, it is not strange at all.)

Freak
May 15th, 2004, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Turbo


I particularly like Kennedy's presentations on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and Biblical Creation. He takes a strong stance against abortion and sexual immorality. And he takes a strong stance against open theism which you have adopted into your personal theology. :down:

Freak
May 15th, 2004, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

CRM does not denounce the resurrection, the divine inspiration of Scripture, the six day creation, the great deluge, absolute moral truth... but it does denounce open theism...but wait you're much smarter then Dr. D. James Kennedy.


It's no more strange than your support of TOL. I don't support TOL's stance on open theism.

Turbo
May 15th, 2004, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Freak

And he takes a strong stance against open theism which you have adopted into your personal theology. :down: Really? I've listened to his show off and on for over three years, and I've never heard him talk about Calvinism or Armenianism, let alone the Open View. As I've said, my only real clue that he is a Calvinist is the name of his church. And just because I disagree with him on one non-essential issue (on which I've never even heard him speak) that is no reason to reject his entire ministry.

Turbo
May 15th, 2004, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by Freak

I don't support TOL's stance on open theism. So why are you getting on my case?

Freak
May 15th, 2004, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Really? I've listened to his show off and on for over three years, and I've never heard him talk about Calvinism or Armenianism, let alone the Open View. Apparently you have never visited his website--and take a peek at his doctrinal statement.

btw, a good article to look at, that one of his professors have written on OV is here: http://www.knoxseminary.org/Prospective/Faculty/KnoxPulpit/slamerson_ets-paper.html

Nineveh
May 16th, 2004, 08:10 PM
Stratnerd,
C'mon now, your question was worded about as honestly as "have you stopped beating your wife yet". You needed to add "recent" to example, "known" to lie and "by creationists" to the unearthing of the truth of a matter.

Far from slacking, God fearing Scientists aren't in short supply, and I will be so bold as to say their discoveries have made leaps and bounds in the world of science.

Andre Marie Ampere
Roger Bacon
Alexander Fleming
Lord Kelvin
Johannes Kepler
Isaac Newton
Louis Pasteur
Wright brothers
Gregor Mendel
To name but a few...

Now if we want to investigate "known" falsehoods, when did that peppered moth thing, and Heckle's ideas get taken out of school text books?

Stratnerd
May 16th, 2004, 08:36 PM
N-

I asked "Perhaps you can provide a recent example where scientist knew the truth but presented lies.... and was uncovered by creationists and not fellow scientists."

You provided a list of almost all pre-Darwin scientists that have nothing to do with what I asked.

As for peppered moths and Haekle's problems, was it creationists that discovered the problems? Again no.


to add "recent" to example, "known" to lie and "by creationists" to the unearthing of the truth of a matter. by recent of thinking of anything post 1900. I'm not familiar with any scandals before this so I can't say either way. But, as far as I know, it was fellow scientists that eventually uncovered the scandals and put them in their right place. Again, I will say that post- Darwin creationists are a useless bunch. Sure, a list of pre-Darwin creationists is impressive but then everyone was a creationist because nobody made such a persuasive arguement before Darwin. Then look at the contributions of creationists after Darwin - comparitively slim I'd say.

as for "known" - what can I say? Gee show me fake fakes???

as for "by creationists" well yea sure because I want to know if creationists these days are a usefull bunch. I think they are useless but I'm looking for examples where these lies of evolutionists are being uncovered by creationists.

Free-Agent Smith
May 16th, 2004, 09:04 PM
I quote this page (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns239.html).

THE JAVA APE-MAN
In 1891 a Dutch army doctor, Eugene Dubois, stationed in Java, reported finding the "missing link" between man and animals! He discovered the top of a skull, three jaw teeth, and part of a thighbone. But he found them 70 feet apart, among many bones along a creek, over the period of a year! After completing his military service Dubois kept the bones in a trunk at home and sent pencil drawings to various evolutionary leaders and museums of the world who eagerly welcomed his "scientific" proof.

THE PITHECANTHROPUS ERECTUS!
Calling his find the Java Ape-Man or "Pithecanthropus erectus" (the ape-man that walks upright), evolutionists swallowed his "proof" without question and arrogantly declared to the world that the Ape-Man was 750,000 years old! Many leading scientists eagerly went to his Holland home to see for themselves those amazing bones, only for Dubois to turn them away at his door.

Finally, after about 35 years, the scientific world demanded to see and evaluate the bones for themselves. Twenty-four European scientists met and studied the bones. Ten said they were the bones of an ape; seven said they came from a man; and seven said they were not the bones of a "missing link!" No less an authority than H.G. Wells, the agnostic historian known for his two-volume Outline of History, said they were the bones of an ape. Even Dubois himself finally admitted that the bones were probably from an ape. But the Java Ape-Man has been paraded in museums and high school and college text books the world over as the "missing link" between man and animals, proving evolution! Almighty God must have had these worldly wise men in mind when He inspired the Apostle Paul to tell Timothy to "...keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called!" (1 Tim. 6:20). Still more!

THE NEBRASKA MAN!
In 1922 a so-called scientist claimed to have found in Nebraska the true "missing link" between men and animals. Dubbed the "Nebraska Man," it was flaunted in text-books and museums of the world as being one million years old. Pictures and models were created, based on the "scientific" studies of experts. Just three years later, in the famous "Monkey Trial" in Dayton, Tenn., in 1925, this overwhelming evidence was introduced to prove evolution and show that "ignorant Bible-believers" were wrong! Great "scientific experts" were quoted to prove their case and all who were dumb enough to believe that God created man in His image were mocked and ridiculed!

When evidence of the "Nebraska Man" was demanded, the "great scientific experts" reluctantly admitted that their evidence consisted of ONE (1) tooth! But that's not all! After evolutionists and the mainstream media reporters bullied lowly Bible believers for years with their "scientific proof" the rest of that skeleton was found, and guess what? It was the skeleton of an extinct pig! What an example of "profane and vain babblings . .. science, falsely so called!"

Free-Agent Smith
May 16th, 2004, 09:08 PM
Deceptive Fossil Interpretations of Evolutionists
by Harun Yahya Ph.D

Deceptive Evos (http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/deceptive.html).

Free-Agent Smith
May 16th, 2004, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Agent Smith

Deceptive Fossil Interpretations of Evolutionists
by Harun Yahya Ph.D

Deceptive Evos (http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/deceptive.html). I get the idea that this guy thinks he has evidence against evolution.
Yahya (http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter16.php),... and this guy isn't even a Christian.


All of Harun Yahya's works share one single goal: to convey the Qur' an's message, encourage readers to consider basic faith-related issues such as God's Existence and Unity and the hereafter; and to expose godless systems' feeble foundations and perverted ideologies.

Nineveh
May 16th, 2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

I asked "Perhaps you can provide a recent example where scientist knew the truth but presented lies.... and was uncovered by creationists and not fellow scientists."

I don't think that was an honestly asked question. You had to qualify it at every turn :)


You provided a list of almost all pre-Darwin scientists that have nothing to do with what I asked.

I only listed 9 lol

Anywho, the concept of paganism predates darwin too. I think it is a point to know that the fathers of some sciences (like flight), were God fearing.


As for peppered moths and Haekle's problems, was it creationists that discovered the problems? Again no.

Thank goodness you made the qualification huh? Or else the lie might be less. So when did they finally take those "known lies" out of the text books?


by recent of thinking of anything post 1900. I'm not familiar with any scandals before this so I can't say either way. But, as far as I know, it was fellow scientists that eventually uncovered the scandals and put them in their right place. Again, I will say that post- Darwin creationists are a useless bunch. Sure, a list of pre-Darwin creationists is impressive but then everyone was a creationist because nobody made such a persuasive arguement before Darwin. Then look at the contributions of creationists after Darwin - comparitively slim I'd say.

Speaking of scandals, how about that embarrasement for National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html), huh? Seems some of these "fossils" will be touring museums this summer, talk about scandalous. But I can understand the zeal some "scientists" have for locating any missing link.

Personally I think "scientists" who abandon darwin now are treated like a mormon who gets a divorce. At one moment leaders in their fields, the next a pariah with no "peer review".


as for "known" - what can I say? Gee show me fake fakes???

Well, I'm sure you could look up a pic of the Piltdown man fairly easily... :)


as for "by creationists" well yea sure because I want to know if creationists these days are a usefull bunch. I think they are useless but I'm looking for examples where these lies of evolutionists are being uncovered by creationists.

Oh, and what if a Creationist did? "WHAT?! He's not PEER REVIEWED! EEgads! And he's a creationist! Everyone knows they aren't really scientists!"

Right.

Creationists can start with the idea DNA is there for a reason, ToErs need millions of dollars and thousands of hours to finally come to that conclusion. So let's weigh your idea of "usless" with my idea of "wasteful uselessness". If darwin hadn't been the foundation of the study of DNA, just think how far science as a whole could be toward understanding what darwinist's created the term for, "junk DNA". Just that one small switch in thinking: "it's there for a reason" instead of "evo leftovers". Btw, the new story is, "evolution must have kept this DNA because it does have a use." In other words... it's there for a reason. "It's there for a reason" is about as ground breaking as Hillary's "boys and girls are different" epiphany. : shrugs:

I imagine our little convo isn't going to go anywhere, but you always seem to be willing to be nice to me , anyway :)

Stratnerd
May 16th, 2004, 09:44 PM
Agent Smith,

1. Any of your examples have anything to do with creationists?

.... I asked if any of these scandals were exposed by creationists. As far as I know it was fellow paleontologists that critiqued these examples as well as all the others.

2. Yahya's stuff sucks. I have a review of two of his books coming out in a forthcoming issue of URL=http://www.cladistics.org/journal.html]Cladistics.

Stratnerd
May 16th, 2004, 10:05 PM
I don't think that was an honestly asked question. You had to qualify it at every turn

It was more than a fair question. You could have provided an example like...

Duane Gish, noted proponent of creationism, discovered that the Piltdown man, Nebraska man, etc etc, were actually fakes and published his material in Science, Nature, etc etc.


I only listed 9 lol but they had nothing to do with what we discussing!


Thank goodness you made the qualification huh? Or else the lie might be less. So when did they finally take those "known lies" out of the text books? qualification? so you're saying that creationists had something to do with it? It is a very simple request that i'm making. The problem with Haekle's drawings is not the fault of science since his mistakes were uncovered and published many many years ago but, rather, a problem with authors of textbooks that are ill-informed or lazy or both.


Speaking of scandals, how about that embarrasement for National Geographic, huh? Seems some of these "fossils" will be touring museums this summer, talk about scandalous. But I can understand the zeal some "scientists" have for locating any missing link. yup, they didn't let several paleontologists review the fossils before they published. but once they did, guess how undiscovered that the fossils were jimmied. The fossil was not a fake but a composite of two fossils - each one was scientifically enlightening by itself.


Personally I think "scientists" who abandon darwin now are treated like a mormon who gets a divorce. At one moment leaders in their fields, the next a pariah with no "peer review". if they were leaders then they should be able to get their articles published.


Well, I'm sure you could look up a pic of the Piltdown man fairly easily... ???? yes Piltdown man is known so why was my use of this word making me less than honest???? I have no idea what were implying by this "qualifier"


Oh, and what if a Creationist did? then you could provide me of something useful! Nothing stops a creationist from publishing the same material that scientists do!!!!

Haekle, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, National Geographic - all scandals, right? None of the problems exposed in public were done by creationists and they just as easily could have.


Creationists can start with the idea DNA is there for a reason, we all know that DNA has a function.

ToErs need millions of dollars and thousands of hours to finally come to that conclusion. and some DNA still doesn't have a function. so what then? If the assumption is that all of it does then wouldn't the same amount of money be spent on finding what that function was?


the new story is, "evolution must have kept this DNA because it does have a use." In other words... it's there for a reason. sure, some.... but that's because the evidence leads us to that conclusion. Not some mystical preconceptions that cannot even be justified.


I imagine our little convo isn't going to go anywhere, but you always seem to be willing to be nice to me , anyway yup, despite calling my peers liars.....

Nineveh
May 16th, 2004, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd
qualification? so you're saying that creationists had something to do with it? It is a very simple request that i'm making. The problem with Haekle's drawings is not the fault of science since his mistakes were uncovered and published many many years ago but, rather, a problem with authors of textbooks that are ill-informed or lazy or both.

The "science" community SQUEELS over creationism even getting a mention but let "known lies" carry on? I think creationists have spoken out about these "evo proofs" more than once. So if we are honest, there is a recent known lie perpetuated by "scientists" pointed out by creationists repeatedly. But for some reason, it won't qualify :)


yup, they didn't let several paleontologists review the fossils before they published. but once they did, guess how undiscovered that the fossils were jimmied. The fossil was not a fake but a composite of two fossils - each one was scientifically enlightening by itself.

I can't believe you would excuse the forgeries. Let alone promoting them "on tour" as a "missing link". Shame.


if they were leaders then they should be able to get their articles published.

Some do, as darwinists. Afterwards though... what did Behe tell you about "peer review"?


???? yes Piltdown man is known so why was my use of this word making me less than honest???? I have no idea what were implying by this "qualifier"

Making you less than honest?? ... you wanted shown fake fakes. The "missing link" is a fake, a fake "missing link" is a fake fake. I didn't think my reply was questioning your truthfulness.


we all know that DNA has a function.
and some DNA still doesn't have a function. so what then? If the assumption is that all of it does then wouldn't the same amount of money be spent on finding what that function was?

Still doesn't have a function? C'mon now, catch up to the new theories of darwinism. If they hadn't assumed darwin was right, they would have put forth all those resources toward finding out what they did to begin with.


sure, some.... but that's because the evidence leads us to that conclusion. Not some mystical preconceptions that cannot even be justified.

It's not a "mystical" concept that boys are different, just like it's not a "mystical" concept DNA is there for a reason. What's mystical is how evo is the savior because scientists now know it's there for a reason.


yup, despite calling my peers liars.....

Well, you did qualify your origional question to make sure the lies were unknown :) But I don't hold you thinking of me as a loon against you either... so :)

Stratnerd
May 16th, 2004, 10:38 PM
So if we are honest, there is a recent known lie perpetuated by "scientists" pointed out by creationists repeatedly. But for some reason, it won't qualify what's that?


can't believe you would excuse the forgeries. Let alone promoting them "on tour" as a "missing link". Shame. WHAT???? I am explaining the facts which you should dispute. What is wrong with using the useful parts of the fossil? If it isn't useful, then why not?


Afterwards though... what did Behe tell you about "peer review"? I never spoke to Behe


I didn't think my reply was questioning your truthfulness.{/quote] Oh... I guess I don't know what you meant when you said "honest question".

[quote] Still doesn't have a function? C'mon now, catch up to the new theories of darwinism. If they hadn't assumed darwin was right, they would have put forth all those resources toward finding out what they did to begin with. BINGO... so an equal amount of money would have been spent. But if a function was discovered then how was it given that we "knew" it had no function?


just like it's not a "mystical" concept DNA is there for a reason. sure it is, justify the reason why you think ALL DNA has a reason and I'm sure you'll bring in God does this or that and if God isn't mystical then I don't know what is.


Well, you did qualify your origional question to make sure the lies were unknown [completely perplexed!] I said "known"in reference to forgeries, etc.

Jukia
May 17th, 2004, 06:20 AM
[b][i]
To be frank, Jukia, I don't believe you really called them, and even if you did, I don't think you could have debunked their arguments with a year of time to prepare your case and a team of scientists helping you, much less ten minutes all by your lonesome.



What do you know about science? Don't think we've failed to notice how little you've actually contributed to these discussions. Mostly you just sit on the sidelines and jeer.

Jack: Try again, I talked w Tom DeRosa last week, I called the 800 # on their web site since my e-mail was having trouble getting through. I posted what he said, I was not trying to "debunk" anything, I wanted information. I am sure that you know that I did not believe the claims made but thought that perhaps a direct connection could shed some light on the issue. They did no radiometric dating, access to the site is now difficult, they made a mistake by letting the general public in, the samples may be contaminated, they aged the fossils by electron micoscrophy (sp?) and claim that only 1% of the bone has been fossilized thereby determining that the bones were only 3-4000 years old ( I am unaware of whether or not that is a valid method of dating, sounds like it could be useful but I had not heard of it before so if you or anyone else has a cite to methodology and validity I would apprciate the information) the study has not been published in any peer reviewed journals (I don't think it has been published anywhere other than on their web site and newsletters).

If you have any other info contrary to what I have posted here on this particular claim by DeRosa and Kennedy please let me know.

Even you, Jack, can look at that and detemine that at best the research is sloppy. You have been around here long enough and posted enough on this board not to have to ask the question as to "What would be proper research". If you want to play with the bog boys in sceince you have to play on their field--means do it the right way.

And I am interested in the "we" of "Don't think we've failed to notice...". Now that sounds conspiratorial (very Nixonian and W-like).

Further, if you think I have just been on the sidelines "jeering", well I apologize. I will have to be more careful, but jeering is just so easy with you guys. I will try to do better.

Nineveh
May 17th, 2004, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

what's that?

LOL I sorta though that would be the attitude, thank you :)


WHAT???? I am explaining the facts which you should dispute. What is wrong with using the useful parts of the fossil? If it isn't useful, then why not?

The real value in all of this was to add another hoax to the "missing link" list.


I never spoke to Behe

Shoot I thought it was you that emailed 'im about peer review, mea culpa :o


BINGO... so an equal amount of money would have been spent. But if a function was discovered then how was it given that we "knew" it had no function?

The premise evos started from was faulty. Now they hail the latest change in evo understanding and can start where creationist do. : shrugs: Maybe "scientists are designed by nature to waste money... : recalls a "study" on the smelliness of doggie poo :


sure it is, justify the reason why you think ALL DNA has a reason and I'm sure you'll bring in God does this or that and if God isn't mystical then I don't know what is.

Well... I hate to tell you this but evos are now believing evo held onto this "junk DNA" for a reason... curiouser and curiouser....

Dimo
May 17th, 2004, 10:08 AM
Nineveh posted:

Far from slacking, God fearing Scientists aren't in short supply, and I will be so bold as to say their discoveries have made leaps and bounds in the world of science.

Andre Marie Ampere
Roger Bacon
Alexander Fleming
Lord Kelvin
Johannes Kepler
Isaac Newton
Louis Pasteur
Wright brothers
Gregor Mendel
To name but a few...

Dimo:

You forgot to mention Charles Darwin. I wonder why that is?

Which scientists after Darwin were YEC type Christians?


Nineveh posted:

Now if we want to investigate "known" falsehoods, when did that peppered moth thing, and Heckle's ideas get taken out of school text books?

Dimo:

They haven't. They are still valuable learning tools. Just like the model of young earth creation, and spontaneous generation is a good learning tool for the history of science. We know it is no longer accurate but it gives us a good idea of how science develops by finding more precise explanations as time goes on. People who truly understand how science works understand this. Yes Haeckle did exaggerate the embryonic similarities in his drawings to make the point more clear. The peppered moth research is still a good example of "micro" evolution, regardless of the cause of the morpheses.

Do you have a problem with every exaggeration or simplification that is used by educators as a learning tool?

That's right you have to see things in black or white. Ideas are either totally correct or totally incorrect to you. If one concept has even a small amount of inaccuracy then the opposing argument must be entirely correct. What a simple life you must lead. Too bad we all can't be as childlike in our view of the world as you.

Dimo
May 17th, 2004, 10:34 AM
Bob B posted:

Your logic is quite flawed. One can disagree with a doctrine or theory without transferring that disagreement to a lack of fondness for an individual.

Dimo:

Bob I agree 100%.


Bob B posted:

Of course many people do hate, or at a minimum show a lack of fondness toward, those who disagree with their theoretical ideas. This is easily seen here by noticing the venom directed toward me

Dimo:

Bob I think you are mistaking critical analyses with a lack of fondness. Just because I recognize your incompetence, does not mean that I am not fond of you. Many people who are close to me, including myself, are incompetent at some things. You remind me of myself when it comes to tenacity. I actually admire your perserverance, just not your methodology. Therefore, I have little confidence in you your overall conclusions when it comes to the material sciences.

Bob B posted:

Simply because I happen to believe that what is written in the Bible, and what has traditionally been what people have understood it to be saying, is true.

Dimo:

Bob I believe that what is written in the Bible is true. Whether or not what you call "traditional" and the meaning that was intended by God are the same is another matter entirely. It seems to me that both ancient humans as well as modern humans are fallible. And past or "traditional" understandings can be innacurate, just like new or "non-traditional" understandings can be innacurate. The only thing we have to measure their accuracy are the knowledge and wisdom we each have.

Dimo
May 17th, 2004, 10:47 AM
Bob B posted:

The idea that a person must agree with all doctrines of a denomination in order to be a member has been out of favor in America for quite some time now.

Dimo:

I agree Bob. This has been going on since way before the US was founded, however.

Bob B posted:

I doubt if many Christian consider the views of Christian leaders to be as infallible as Catholics do regarding their Pope, although some might.

Dimo:

Most Catholics do not consider the Pope to be infallible. I remember as a child questioning a literal interpretation of Genesis. This was prior to the Popes proclamation in 1981, that Catholics can now accept evolution. Most of the Catholics I knew already considered evolution to be the most accurate explanation for origins.

I think that many Protestants, such as yourself, think that the people who originated "traditional" ideas were infallible.


Bob B posted:

If I didn't know better I might think you are deliberately sowing discord among the brothers.

Dimo:

If I didn't know better Bob I would think that you are "deliberately" sowing discord among the brothers. Of course there are verses in scripture that support this sowing of discord. One of them was spoken by Jesus himself.

Perhaps Polly needs to read her Bible again.

Nineveh
May 17th, 2004, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Dimo

They haven't. They are still valuable learning tools. Just like the model of young earth creation, and spontaneous generation is a good learning tool for the history of science. We know it is no longer accurate but it gives us a good idea of how science develops by finding more precise explanations as time goes on. People who truly understand how science works understand this. Yes Haeckle did exaggerate the embryonic similarities in his drawings to make the point more clear. The peppered moth research is still a good example of "micro" evolution, regardless of the cause of the morpheses.

You are the second ToEr to try to justify hoaxes. What can I say?


Do you have a problem with every exaggeration or simplification that is used by educators as a learning tool?

I have a problem with obvious frauds being taught as proofs. But on second thought, what better way to illustrate ToE...


That's right you have to see things in black or white. Ideas are either totally correct or totally incorrect to you. If one concept has even a small amount of inaccuracy then the opposing argument must be entirely correct. What a simple life you must lead. Too bad we all can't be as childlike in our view of the world as you.

Crooks created frauds that were "eaten up" by mainstream science. I can't believe you and Strat actually think hoaxes and frauds are good things. Your logic is beyond me to rationalize.

Stratnerd
May 17th, 2004, 04:18 PM
N-

You said "So if we are honest, there is a recent known lie perpetuated by "scientists" pointed out by creationists repeatedly. But for some reason, it won't qualify"

I responded "what's that?" as in "what are you talking about" which you kindly replied: "LOL I sorta though that would be the attitude, thank you" :bang:

Did you not get I didn't know what you were talking about so again I'll ask "what's that?" as in "what is a recent known lie"?


The real value in all of this was to add another hoax to the "missing link" list. I guess you don't get it - two good fossils were put together - the upper body of a Cretaceous bird and the lower body of a Cretaceous lizard. BOTH GOOD (AKA BONA FIDE) fossils but presented together (by a seller not a biologist, btw) was a fake. :bang:

OK, if I take the real Mona Lisa and a Casset painting and put them together you have two pieces of good art stuck together to make one fake. Got it?


Shoot I thought it was you that emailed 'im about peer review, mea culpa I emailed an editor of one of the creationist mags and he said only creationists review their articles.


The premise evos started from was faulty. at the time the evidence was that this area had no function but later evidence suggest that it did. Big deal. :shrugs: Your inference should be from the evidence - how do you do science? Oh, you don't do science. Well, OK then, how would you find the function of junk DNA with less $ than a regular scientist? When would you decide that a particular sequence had no function and you were actually wasting $?


I can't believe you and Strat actually think hoaxes and frauds are good things see, I stay nice until I see this crap that really tees me off. DID I EVER SAY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING I DID????

I said that one fake fossil was actually made up of two good fossils.

STOP TWISTING WORDS AROUND, PLEASE.

Stratnerd
May 17th, 2004, 04:19 PM
Does anyone have an example were a biological scandal was uncovered by a creationist?

Free-Agent Smith
May 17th, 2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

Agent Smith,

1. Any of your examples have anything to do with creationists?

.... I asked if any of these scandals were exposed by creationists. As far as I know it was fellow paleontologists that critiqued these examples as well as all the others.As far as I know you never bothered to read any of the links I sent you.


2. Yahya's stuff sucks. I have a review of two of his books coming out in a forthcoming issue of URL=http://www.cladistics.org/journal.html]Cladistics. Whether you like the examples or not doesn't really matter. Yahya is a creation scientist.

Stratnerd
May 17th, 2004, 04:33 PM
As far as I know you never bothered to read any of the links I sent you. i did but I failed to see where creationists were involved. maybe you could provide an example of a fraud that was uncovered.


Whether you like the examples or not doesn't really matter. Yahya is a creation scientist.

Nope. He's a philosopher and he probably doesn't write his own books. His expertise is in philosophy not science. But what fraud has he uncovered? Why even mention him?

Free-Agent Smith
May 17th, 2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

Does anyone have an example were a biological scandal was uncovered by a creationist? Biological scandal? Sounds like something from the Clinton administration. I understand that you probably don't give any credit to anyone who supports or endorses Creation science. I also understand that you, I and everyone else on here are debating theory.

So... until you can believe that science can prove intelligent design(Creationism), one aspect at a time or one chromosome at a time, I don't think anything I say or any link I can post will satisfy you.. so I won't.
BUt I have learned more from those claiming to believe in Creationism than evolution.

Stratnerd
May 17th, 2004, 04:52 PM
I understand that you probably don't give any credit to anyone who supports or endorses Creation science. I give people credit when they are able to connect the dots and use logic. Since creation isn't based on evidence (connecting the dots) then logic MUST be twisted.


So... until you can believe that science can prove intelligent design(Creationism), name the experiment, the hypothesis, and, most importantly, the justification for the hypothesis. In other words, how do you take what you know about how God creates and turn it into ACGCAAGTAGCGT..... If you can't do it then you cannot justify. If you cannot justify then you cannot link prediction to hypothesis and you are not doing science but something else.


BUt I have learned more from those claiming to believe in Creationism than evolution. if Yahya is one of those then I am very sorry.

Free-Agent Smith
May 17th, 2004, 05:27 PM
Strat,


Maybe you can use your evolutionary logic and prove macro-evolution to me, beyond any doubt?

Stratnerd
May 17th, 2004, 06:55 PM
> Maybe you can use your evolutionary logic and prove macro-evolution to me, beyond any doubt?

I always thought there was just logic...

There is doubt, just as there is anything interesting in science. Things beyond doubt are just observations.

But we know that the phenotype is largely based on genetic programs

We know that this program makes mistakes from generation to generation

We know that those mistakes results in changes in phenotype

We don't know of any reason why the changes in genotype chould not have happened naturally

We know that the fossil history of organisms is largely reflected by their phylogeny - best explained by evolution

We know that biogeography is largely reflected by phylogeny - best explained by evolution

Nineveh
May 17th, 2004, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

You said "So if we are honest, there is a recent known lie perpetuated by "scientists" pointed out by creationists repeatedly. But for some reason, it won't qualify"

I responded "what's that?" as in "what are you talking about" which you kindly replied: "LOL I sorta though that would be the attitude, thank you" :bang:

Did you not get I didn't know what you were talking about so again I'll ask "what's that?" as in "what is a recent known lie"?

I'm sorry, I thought you were following along, weren't we talking about text books?


I guess you don't get it - two good fossils were put together - the upper body of a Cretaceous bird and the lower body of a Cretaceous lizard. BOTH GOOD (AKA BONA FIDE) fossils but presented together (by a seller not a biologist, btw) was a fake. :bang:

Look, this was a hoax. Two fossils put together and proclaimed to be a "missing link" is a hoax, what is there to miss? Other than why you are defending it...


at the time the evidence was that this area had no function but later evidence suggest that it did. Big deal. :shrugs: Your inference should be from the evidence - how do you do science? Oh, you don't do science. Well, OK then, how would you find the function of junk DNA with less $ than a regular scientist? When would you decide that a particular sequence had no function and you were actually wasting $?

: laughing: You wanna miss this point don't you? All these years "scientists" operated under the ignorant assumption there was such a thing as "junk DNA". Just now they have become enlightened enough to realize it has a function, a purpose for being. So on with the new "theory"! Evolution had a purpose for keeping it. VIOLA! And mainstream science moves a whole step up to square one. DNA has a purpose for being there.


see, I stay nice until I see this crap that really tees me off. DID I EVER SAY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING I DID????

I think you just took this opportunity to fly off the handle. If you wanna continue to defend a hoax as being worth something other than a hoax, I ain't gunna stop you, but I will think you are silly.


I said that one fake fossil was actually made up of two good fossils.

10 zillion fossils glued together and proclaimed to be something other than 10 zillion different fossils, is still a hoax. And "science" magazines will still blush at their eager zeal in the pursuit of any "missing link" by publishing full cover spreads on them.

Now, like I said earlier, this convo won't go anywhere. So if it's only going to make you grumpy, let's just stop now, ok? :)

Stratnerd
May 17th, 2004, 08:26 PM
I'm sorry, I thought you were following along, weren't we talking about text books? scandals and what creationists were doing... but what was this lie?


Two fossils put together and proclaimed to be a "missing link" is a hoax, what is there to miss? Other than why you are defending it... you're missing the point the composite was a hoax but the pieces were bona fide. I'M NOT DEFENDING THE HOAX BUT USING THE INDIVIDUAL PIECES.


All these years "scientists" operated under the ignorant assumption there was such a thing as "junk DNA". and at one time we didn't know what caused a cold, what made us grow, etc. It's called science and it's about discovery. The evidence at the time suggested that it didn't have a known function but a closer inspection suggested that it did so we looked and we found it. Evolutionary biologists did this NOT creationists. They had nothing to do with.


So on with the new "theory"! yup, theories change and get modified. Not sure how this changes evolution. In fact, it was because of evolutionary theory we thought there was a function!


I think you just took this opportunity to fly off the handle. If you wanna continue to defend a hoax as being worth something other than a hoax, I ain't gunna stop you, but I will think you are silly. no, you put words in my mouth so let me try to set it straight again. I don't defend the use of the hoax but the use of the individual pieces.

Free-Agent Smith
May 17th, 2004, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

> Maybe you can use your evolutionary logic and prove macro-evolution to me, beyond any doubt?

I always thought there was just logic...

There is doubt, just as there is anything interesting in science. Things beyond doubt are just observations.

But we know that the phenotype is largely based on genetic programs

We know that this program makes mistakes from generation to generation

We know that those mistakes results in changes in phenotype

We don't know of any reason why the changes in genotype chould not have happened naturally

We know that the fossil history of organisms is largely reflected by their phylogeny - best explained by evolution

We know that biogeography is largely reflected by phylogeny - best explained by evolution
I was hoping you might be able to help define why we can't seem to get our hands on the missing links in the fossil records.

I was hoping that you might be able to give me a strong evolution explaination on the geographical oddities of the Grand Canyon.

I was hoping you could atleast provide me a believable link that truly proves man evolved from ape.

I was hoping you might give me some logical reason as to why I should believe that at one time, billions of years ago, my ancestors were primordial slime.

Stratnerd
May 17th, 2004, 08:51 PM
I was hoping you might be able to help define why we can't seem to get our hands on the missing links in the fossil records.
1. there are some
2. there shouldn't be many


I was hoping that you might be able to give me a strong evolution explaination on the geographical oddities of the Grand Canyon. as opposed to a global flood that affected only the that area in the Grand Canyon yet ignore the rest of the planet? Without providing examples, how could I actually respond?

It's not about making ad hoc explanations that sweep away contrary evidence but rather pulling stuff into a theory that allows for more phenomena to be explained. Creationism is all about explaining away (super speciation, super plate tectonics, super light speed) and these explanations always leave more things unexplained.


I was hoping you could atleast provide me a believable link that truly proves man evolved from ape. other than the congruence between molecular phylogenies (that is, several independent sets of data keep points out that we are more like chimps than either of us are to gorillas) or the numerous fossils that are intermediate - why do you think we argue if H. erectus is "human" or ape. It can't be because it is dissimilar. What does creationism have to say about non sapian humans? "Oh neat"


I was hoping you might give me some logical reason as to why I should believe that at one time, billions of years ago, my ancestors were primordial slime. bcause as we go back in time we get to a point where for two billion years there's nothing but prokaryotes. So these were either poofed or they appeared naturally.

Free-Agent Smith
May 17th, 2004, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

1. there are some
2. there shouldn't be many Haven't seen one yet. I would think there would be many of these as there are many fossils found of other species.


as opposed to a global flood that affected only the that area in the Grand Canyon yet ignore the rest of the planet? Without providing examples, how could I actually respond? Are you suggesting that the layers of our planet(I can only speculate on the first mile) don't appear in anyway similar to the sedimentary layers that would be found like in deltas or river beds? You know heavy stuff falling first and light stuff last in concern to say animals or their fossilized bones.


It's not about making ad hoc explanations that sweep away contrary evidence but rather pulling stuff into a theory that allows for more phenomena to be explained. Creationism is all about explaining away (super speciation, super plate tectonics, super light speed) and these explanations always leave more things unexplained. I have never heard of these "super" things before. Please enlighten me.


other than the congruence between molecular phylogenies (that is, several independent sets of data keep points out that we are more like chimps than either of us are to gorillas) or the numerous fossils that are intermediate - why do you think we argue if H. erectus is "human" or ape. It can't be because it is dissimilar. What does creationism have to say about non sapian humans? "Oh neat"If apes evolved into humans why didn't all species of apes evolve into something better ?


bcause as we go back in time we get to a point where for two billion years there's nothing but prokaryotes. So these were either poofed or they appeared naturally. How would they have naturally appeared or "poofed"? And how do you know for sure that there was nothing around but prokaryotes? And how did evolutionists find evidence/fossils(?) of these?

Crow
May 17th, 2004, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Freak

That's strange. You embrace a ministry that denounces the very theology you hold so dear.

Oh, for heaven's sake, Freak!

Why in the world would you suggest that Christians (Turbo, in this case) would need to agree on all points of theology to appreciate and draw strength from each other?

There is not one Christian on this board that I agree with 100% on every issue. Nori and met in real life and we are so much alike that it's eerie, but we don't agree 100%. I was saved through Bob Enyart's ministry, and I don't agree with him 100% on non-salvic issues. Tye Porter and I were very close on most issues, but I didn't agree with him 100%. Nor with Nineveh, Agent Smith, Turbo, Sibbie, Knight, Poly, Lucky, SOTK, Sozo, Aimiel, OEJ, Jefferson, E4E, Melody, Christine, Elaine, wholearmor, Yorzhik, Clete, frostman J, Shaun, Berean Todd, Dread Helmet, and a host of others to whom I am forever indebted.

I don't agree with the Catholic church on a ton of issues, yet I can appreciate that they vigerously uphold the right of a child to be born. Didn't someone start a thread on how they appreciated some of the views the Catholic church holds recently, even though they don't agree with them on every issue? :think:

There are plenty of OV and CV people on this board that I have learned from.

I'm OV, and I appreciate CRM.

If I stand around waiting for the Christian brother or sister that I agree with 100% to appreciate, I'm going to be having a self-admiration society going on here, and nothing else.

None of us is perfect or in perfect agreement on all issues. The only perfection in us is the Righteousness which we never earned, but received from God by Grace through Faith.

But we can still draw strength from each other. And one day, when we are with Him in our new bodies and can learn the definitive answers first hand, I submit that we'll all have a suprise or two, and we'll all see that as long as we are His, our disagreements that were born of our limited human understanding weren't as important as we've made them.

Jukia
May 18th, 2004, 04:31 AM
Agent Smith: Never heard of the hydro plate theory, that strikes me as super plate tectonics and super absurd as well. I have also seen numerous references to using a change in the speed of light to "prove" that the earth is much younger than it really is.
But I must admit that the hydro plate theory strikes me as the absolute silliest to explaint Noah's flood. It requires a complete suspension of belief in geology, meteorology, physics etc. Very creative with zero evidence to back it up. Absolute pure speculation. An A for creativity an F for real science.

bob b
May 18th, 2004, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by Jukia

Agent Smith: Never heard of the hydro plate theory, that strikes me as super plate tectonics and super absurd as well. I have also seen numerous references to using a change in the speed of light to "prove" that the earth is much younger than it really is.
But I must admit that the hydro plate theory strikes me as the absolute silliest to explaint Noah's flood. It requires a complete suspension of belief in geology, meteorology, physics etc. Very creative with zero evidence to back it up. Absolute pure speculation. An A for creativity an F for real science.

Home of the Hydroplate Theory:

http://www.creationscience.com/

Nineveh
May 18th, 2004, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

scandals and what creationists were doing... but what was this lie?

Never mind, I don't think you want to understand what I have been trying to relate.


you're missing the point the composite was a hoax but the pieces were bona fide. I'M NOT DEFENDING THE HOAX BUT USING THE INDIVIDUAL PIECES.

Alright. Look. Two fossils, that we have many of, were put together as a hoax. There isn't anything but a novelty value to them. Well... and a draw from museums (who should know they are a hoax) to display them as a missing link this summer...


and at one time we didn't know what caused a cold, what made us grow, etc. It's called science and it's about discovery. The evidence at the time suggested that it didn't have a known function but a closer inspection suggested that it did so we looked and we found it. Evolutionary biologists did this NOT creationists. They had nothing to do with.

Like I said, out of ignorance they were labled "junk". Now evos have a reason for them being there. I guess it's an evo trait to waste resources proving the obvious : shrugs:


yup, theories change and get modified. Not sure how this changes evolution. In fact, it was because of evolutionary theory we thought there was a function!

No, "junk DNA" was thought useless until recently.


no, you put words in my mouth so let me try to set it straight again. I don't defend the use of the hoax but the use of the individual pieces.

When two pieces are joined together and modified, what use have they other than their intended purpose as a hoax? It's not like the fossils themselves are one-of-a-kinds. (I still think you are silly for believing these modified fossils have any value other than their intended purpose)

***

Speaking of "science" news, have you gotten a load of the new reviews of Joan Roughgarden's Book in "Science" and "Nature" on bisexuality?

aharvey
May 18th, 2004, 08:05 AM
Dang it! I should never have peeked at the Origins site to see what’s been happening lately! I’ve got too much actual research to do! Sigh…


Originally posted by Agent Smith

Haven't seen one yet [missing link]. I would think there would be many of these as there are many fossils found of other species.

The whole “missing links” issue is a red herring. A missing link is a gap. Every time a “missing link” (we’ll call it C) is discovered between two known taxa (say, A and B), that creates two new gaps (one between A and C, the other between B and C). As time passes, the number of gaps increases, but the size of the gaps decreases. Makes this a perfect, but perfectly specious, line of creationist attack.

This “gap multiplication” is the only possible reason you would expect to find as many missing link fossils as fossils of “other species,” but then this is only because the majority of extinct species might be considered to be a “missing link” between something! If, on the other hand, you want to restrict the concept of missing link to transitions between major groups (phyla, for example), then you’d have to agree that such fossils should be far rarer than most, simply because there are millions of species, but only dozens of phyla!


Originally posted by Agent Smith

Are you suggesting that the layers of our planet(I can only speculate on the first mile) don't appear in anyway similar to the sedimentary layers that would be found like in deltas or river beds? You know heavy stuff falling first and light stuff last in concern to say animals or their fossilized bones.

Things must have changed since I last visited the Grand Canyon. When I was there, all the heavy fossilized bones were not in the bottom layers of the canyon sediments. I do agree with you, Agent Smith, that this would be a reasonable expectation if all these sediments were laid down in a single, geologically instantaneous event. However, I don’t know of anywhere in the world where this is the case. Hmm…


Originally posted by Agent Smith

If apes evolved into humans why didn't all species of apes evolve into something better ?

“Better”?!? See, this is why we need to be teaching evolutionary theory in schools again. Evolution is change, not progress. Organisms can’t evolve a new feature just because it would be helpful. Furthermore, the environment in which a species lives both pushes and constrains the direction, and intensity, of evolutionary change. Once humans were on the scene, it might not have benefited other apes to evolve in the same direction.

And last, but not least, Bob b provides the link to the magical hydroplate “theory.” Talk about irony. Bob b, who consistently complains about the unreasonable assumptions used by evolutionists and actualists (i.e., scientists), provides a link to a theory whose two main assumptions are, and I quote:

“Assumption 1: Subterranean Water. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the earth’s surface. Excluding the solid structure of the interconnected chambers, the subterranean water, containing a large amount of dissolved salt and carbon dioxide, would have approximated a thin, spherical shell, about 3/4of a mile in thickness. Above the subterranean water was a granite crust; beneath the water was a layer of basaltic rock.

Assumption 2: Increasing Pressure. Pressure in the subterranean water steadily increased.”

That first assumption alone leaves me breathless. Compare these to the assumption of actualism, so detested by Bob b:

“Assumption: fundamental physical and biological processes (but not necessarily their rates or intensities) have remained unchanged throughout time.”

I’m at a loss how actualism’s assumption is more worthy of ridicule than those of the hydroplate theory.

cur_deus_homo
May 18th, 2004, 08:42 AM
CRM, CSI, ICR, CRI...they're all out there battling for their "truth" and trying to "reclaim America for Christ" and expose the "lie" of evolution. The Bible and the ministry of Jesus contains scant evidence upon which organizations such as these try to make their case for creating and fighting culture wars, which is their real agenda. If they were really interested in "Truth" and Christian unity they would be engaging face-to-face those in the church who disagree with them theologically. They don't engage others in this way, however, they only talk amongst themselves.

Swordsman
May 18th, 2004, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

I missed this post before:
Yes. I figured as much. I'll ask you what I asked Freak:

So?

I particularly like Kennedy's presentations on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and Biblical Creation. He takes a strong stance against abortion and sexual immorality. He also has many great guest speakers. I think Pam Stenzel is my favorite. I also like Joshua Harris. (Yes, I know.;)) There have been many others; I just don't remember their names.

No worries. I just never correlated OVers with the likes of Presby teachers. My apologies for stereotyping. :)

Jukia
May 18th, 2004, 12:10 PM
The hydroplate theory is simply the best, the most amazing and the most foolish of all the flood theories I have even seen!

Nineveh
May 18th, 2004, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Jukia

The hydroplate theory is simply the best, the most amazing and the most foolish of all the flood theories I have even seen!

Then you should be able to appreciate how I feel about :darwinsm: :)

Jukia
May 18th, 2004, 01:15 PM
Nineveh: Am I missing something? Do you buy that hydroplate theory? Can't tell from your post, maybe I am just dense this afternoon. Thanks

Turbo
May 18th, 2004, 01:16 PM
bob b,

Did you see my reponse to you from Saturday? (post #20)

bob b
May 18th, 2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

bob b,

Did you see my reponse to you from Saturday? (post #20)

Yes, but this subject has been beaten to death.

Dimo
May 18th, 2004, 04:16 PM
Nineveh posted:

No, "junk DNA" was thought useless until recently.

Dimo:

Again Nineveh you are misinformed. This is the laypersons understanding. Genticists and paleobiologists realize that any DNA was usefull at one point and may become usefull in the future. When analysing the current influence of any DNA on enzyme production some effects are more apparent than others. The current effect of much DNA is still not known. Bob's one example does not change the whole of scientific understanding.

But of course your black or white thinking kicks in again. If there is one inaccuracy, it must all be wrong.

How sad.

Turbo
May 18th, 2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by bob b

Yes, but this subject has been beaten to death. OK. :sigh:

Dimo
May 18th, 2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by bob b

Yes, but this subject has been beaten to death.

Dimo:

That's funny I thought this subject was beaten to death way before this thread was started. Kind of like every other thread and subject started by YECs about origins. The only reason I offer my insight is to point out that the only "evidence" for the YEC model is misinformation, deciet, and/or old warn out arguments that some newer people to this debate might have missed.

Nineveh
May 18th, 2004, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Jukia
Do you buy that hydroplate theory?

I've read Mr. Brown's book. He makes sense to me :)


Can't tell from your post, maybe I am just dense this afternoon. Thanks

Your post and mine were equivalent in substance :)

Free-Agent Smith
May 18th, 2004, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Dang it! I should never have peeked at the Origins site to see what’s been happening lately! I’ve got too much actual research to do! Sigh…

Well I don't wonder in to the "origins" very often either. Since I am not well-educated in antrhopology people tend to treat me like a total idiot even though I do try to learn in here. You would have to say that I believe in Creationism because I haven't seen or heard of anything yet that can get me to believe in evolution.


This part of my post is open to all and not directly adressed to aharvey.
Since my terminology isn't quite to par with some of you guys I would appreciate it if you would speak down to my level, so that I better understand your arguements against Creationism. Since I am not a moron try not to be too patronizing.

Nineveh
May 18th, 2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Dimo

Nineveh posted:

No, "junk DNA" was thought useless until recently.

Dimo:

Again Nineveh you are misinformed. This is the laypersons understanding. Genticists and paleobiologists realize that any DNA was usefull at one point and may become usefull in the future. When analysing the current influence of any DNA on enzyme production some effects are more apparent than others. The current effect of much DNA is still not known. Bob's one example does not change the whole of scientific understanding.

But of course your black or white thinking kicks in again. If there is one inaccuracy, it must all be wrong.

How sad.

Um... how does this make the assesment that DNA now is "junk"? OOPs no, sorry, they don't think it's "junk" anymore because it has a use now. They finally realized it wasn't just evo left overs but actually has a function. They labled it "junk" before they had a clue what it was or what it did.

To set the record straight:
Junk DNA Definition: Stretches of DNA that do not code for genes; most of the genome consists of so-called junk DNA which may have regulatory and other functions. Also called non-coding DNA.

"Junk" is somewhat a misnomer, because molecular biology remains a young science. Segments of DNA may function in additional ways that have not yet been discovered, which might suggest uses for much or all of the junk. Scientists generally keep this likelihood in mind even as they persist in using the word "junk," which for better or worse has stuck."
cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA)


DNA was usefull at one point and may become usefull in the future.

I would really like to read up on "may become useful in the future". Got a link?

Nineveh
May 18th, 2004, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Dimo

Kind of like every other thread and subject started by YECs about origins.

May I suggest I started this thread about Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI teaming up? I sorta thought the OP and thread title would give it away...

Jukia
May 19th, 2004, 05:24 AM
Nineveh: No our posts were not equivilent.

Brown's hydoplate theory has no factual scientific basis that I have ever come across. I once asked on one of these threads for a site to anyone working in the field of oceanography who agreed with Brown. I thought the oceanographers would be the appropriate people since they deal with oceanic trenches, mid-ocean ridges, etc. But I never received any response.

I guess I figure Brown is just a genius and the world has not caught up with him yet, or he is the biggest self-deluded person on the planet. Take your pick, gotta be one or the other.

Stratnerd
May 19th, 2004, 07:17 AM
Never mind, I don't think you want to understand what I have been trying to relate. :doh: That's why I asked several times what you were trying to say. Geesh.

Alright. Look. Two fossils, that we have many of, were put together as a hoax. There isn't anything but a novelty value to them. Well... and a draw from museums (who should know they are a hoax) to display them as a missing link this summer... OMG... they are using the pieces individually not a composite. I don't get why you insist that each piece is worthless? The hoax is the composite not the individual pieces.


Like I said, out of ignorance they were labled "junk". Now evos have a reason for them being there. I guess it's an evo trait to waste resources proving the obvious it was exactly because of evolutionary theory that we suspected that those sequences had function. What is it about creationism that makes any predictions that would make you think that a particular sequence had a function? If everything has a function then if we found a region of DNA without a particular function would you insist that it did or would you allow to falsify your "hypothesis" that all DNA has function?


It's not like the fossils themselves are one-of-a-kinds. (I still think you are silly for believing these modified fossils have any value other than their intended purpose)

ITS THE UNMODIFIED PIECES THAT HAVE VALUE.


Speaking of "science" news, have you gotten a load of the new reviews of Joan Roughgarden's Book in "Science" and "Nature" on bisexuality? no, I steer away from that kind of stuff.

bob b
May 19th, 2004, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Jukia

Nineveh: No our posts were not equivilent.

Brown's hydoplate theory has no factual scientific basis that I have ever come across. I once asked on one of these threads for a site to anyone working in the field of oceanography who agreed with Brown. I thought the oceanographers would be the appropriate people since they deal with oceanic trenches, mid-ocean ridges, etc. But I never received any response.

I guess I figure Brown is just a genius and the world has not caught up with him yet, or he is the biggest self-deluded person on the planet. Take your pick, gotta be one or the other.

If one defines "genius" by IQ and academic honors then Brown is a genius. Nevertheless his concept must stand or fall depending on the evidence and it is very difficult to verify events that happened in the far past.

His theory is consistent with scripture, which is more than one can say about the vague "millions of years" concept favored by most scientists working in the field of Origins.

Stratnerd
May 19th, 2004, 07:34 AM
Haven't seen one yet. yea, you keep saying that but you, by your own admission, aren't looking.

I would think there would be many of these as there are many fossils found of other species. Darwin, over 150 years ago, provided reasons why we shouldn't find very many fossils of intermediates. I would read his chapters in Origin of Species. To sum it up, the conditions that favor fossilization are rare enough that they don't capture/sample all that is going on.


Are you suggesting that the layers of our planet(I can only speculate on the first mile) don't appear in anyway similar to the sedimentary layers that would be found like in deltas or river beds? heck no, why should they? completely different processes.

You know heavy stuff falling first and light stuff last in concern to say animals or their fossilized bones. then, given a global flood, why don't we find a single heavy layer, then a single medium layer, then a fine layer, and organisms sorted out by weight?


I have never heard of these "super" things before. Please enlighten me. Bob B., is quite familiar with all these since he has suggested them. In fact, the hydroplate theory is part of the super-tectonics. The superspeciation thing is use when accounting for the few thousand years between Noah's kinds and all the species today. Super light speed to account to the star light/distance problem. All ad hoc explanation meant to explain way problems that reality and logic present. Problem is they leave more unexplained.


If apes evolved into humans why didn't all species of apes evolve into something better? evolution works through mutations that are random as well as the interaction with the environment. The likelihood that the same combination of mutations that occurred to produce us will occur in a another lineage is ~ nil. Also, given the intelligence of apes now and the other species of primates, I would say they they too have become more intelligent.


How would they have naturally appeared or "poofed"? assuming that the same processes that occur today (mutation/selection, etc) occur in the past and we have never witnesses poofing - why should we invoke a process/event that we've never seen and how no idea how it happens (which means you can never justify it).

And how do you know for sure that there was nothing around but prokaryotes? we never know for sure but that's what the evidence suggests.
[/quote] And how did evolutionists find evidence/fossils(?) of these? [/QUOTE] by being out in the field

Nineveh
May 19th, 2004, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Jukia

Nineveh: No our posts were not equivilent.

Yeah, they were :)


Brown's hydoplate theory has no factual scientific basis that I have ever come across. I once asked on one of these threads for a site to anyone working in the field of oceanography who agreed with Brown. I thought the oceanographers would be the appropriate people since they deal with oceanic trenches, mid-ocean ridges, etc. But I never received any response.

So because we have no Oceanographers on TOL, Brown's ideas are less of a theory than, let's say... dinosaurs-to-birds theory?


I guess I figure Brown is just a genius and the world has not caught up with him yet, or he is the biggest self-deluded person on the planet. Take your pick, gotta be one or the other.

Yep :)

Jukia
May 19th, 2004, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by bob b

His theory is consistent with scripture.


And the reason you buy into it, clearly nothing to do with facts and evidence.

Jukia
May 19th, 2004, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh




So because we have no Oceanographers on TOL, Brown's ideas are less of a theory than, let's say... dinosaurs-to-birds theory?





No, nothing to do with oceanographers on TOL. I have suggested that someone, preferably someone on TOL, find an oceanographer, unconnected with Brown, who agrees with him.

Brown's theory is actually fascinating but made up of whole cloth, there is no basis for it that I am aware of other than perhaps bob b's statement that it is consistent with Scripture. But that is not really the point of science--to make up theories that fit with Scripture. The point of science ought to be to investigate the natural world, get the facts first etc.

Nineveh
May 19th, 2004, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd
OMG... they are using the pieces individually not a composite. I don't get why you insist that each piece is worthless? The hoax is the composite not the individual pieces.

They were presented as one fossil, a "missing link".


In stark contrast to their sensationalistic ‘Feathers for T. rex’ article, National Geographic has printed a brief, yet revealing statement by Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing. Xu's revelation appears in the somewhat obscure Forum section of the March, 2000 issue, together with a carefully crafted editorial response. The letter from Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, reads:

‘After observing a new feathered dromaeosaur specimen in a private collection and comparing it with the fossil known as Archaeoraptor [pages 100–101], I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’1 cite (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4229news3-2-2000.asp)

If we only had one of each of the peices, I might see your point, but we have many of these fossils. Why you insist this hoax can be worth anything but an embarrasment to National Geographic and any museum that makes a display on this "missing link" is beyond me.


it was exactly because of evolutionary theory that we suspected that those sequences had function. What is it about creationism that makes any predictions that would make you think that a particular sequence had a function? If everything has a function then if we found a region of DNA without a particular function would you insist that it did or would you allow to falsify your "hypothesis" that all DNA has function?

Nice try. It's the evos that that didn't understand not all DNA coded for genes, they labled DNA that didn't act in their realm of understanding as "junk". This isn't the only example of this attitude either. At one point the appendix was considered an evo left over, too.


ITS THE UNMODIFIED PIECES THAT HAVE VALUE.

Whatever you wanna believe.


no, I steer away from that kind of stuff.

I thought Science and Nature were two of those "peer review" things you keep talking about...

Nineveh
May 19th, 2004, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Jukia

No, nothing to do with oceanographers on TOL. I have suggested that someone, preferably someone on TOL, find an oceanographer, unconnected with Brown, who agrees with him.

Looks like that leg work belongs to you.


Brown's theory is actually fascinating but made up of whole cloth, there is no basis for it that I am aware of other than perhaps bob b's statement that it is consistent with Scripture. But that is not really the point of science--to make up theories that fit with Scripture. The point of science ought to be to investigate the natural world, get the facts first etc.

Sorta like the whole cloth that turns two fossil teeth into a thriving social community?

Jukia
May 19th, 2004, 08:10 AM
Nineveh: No the leg work is not mine.
Got a cite for the 2 fossil teeth into the thriving social community comment?

Nineveh
May 19th, 2004, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Jukia

Nineveh: No the leg work is not mine.

Ok, so because you don't like Dr. Brown's theory, you want someone else to prove it to you? Are you willing to put forth the same effort proving evo theories?


Got a cite for the 2 fossil teeth into the thriving social community comment?

I will start by referencing Mr. Smith's post (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=525690#post525690), and then ask you how many museum displays you have seen with the happy neanderthal family cooking dinner.

Jukia
May 19th, 2004, 08:45 AM
Nineveh: Sorry, dont have time to work through Smith's entire rant. got a specific issue to refer me to?
And I don't want someone to "prove" Brown to me, I would think that is something you would jump at. I think it is utter nonsense, garbage science at its best (or worst?). But if you think it makes sense, find some other support. When I first heard of plate tectonics I thought it was pretty crazy but have since seen enough evidence to think it is factual. But the general idea of plate movement over millions or billions of years is a bit more palatable than Brown's ideas. However, I remain willing to look at evidence.

Flipper
May 19th, 2004, 08:54 AM
Jukia:


Sorry, dont have time to work through Smith's entire rant... However, I remain willing to look at evidence.

Actually, it's really not that long. Agent Smith references Java Man and Nebraska Man. One from the 1890s, the other from 1922.

Java Man would probably have been demonstrated as mistaken ID had the finder of the bones actually allowed scientists to see more than just sketches.

Clearly hominid palaeontology left a lot to be desired at the turn of the century, slightly more than 30 years after Darwin published The Origin of Species. I think science has moved on a bit since then though.

Nineveh
May 19th, 2004, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Jukia

Nineveh: Sorry, dont have time

No hurry, I can wait :)


And I don't want someone to "prove" Brown to me, I would think that is something you would jump at. I think it is utter nonsense, garbage science at its best (or worst?). But if you think it makes sense, find some other support.

And what support other than you-like-it-better does evo have? ("Most scientists agree" won't cut it. "Most scientists" can be completely wrong, too. An example is the appendix, etc.)


When I first heard of plate tectonics I thought it was pretty crazy but have since seen enough evidence to think it is factual. But the general idea of plate movement over millions or billions of years is a bit more palatable than Brown's ideas. However, I remain willing to look at evidence.

You should see the vid on Mt St Helens. Things happen a lot more rapidly than one might be lead to believe through evo :)

Nineveh
May 19th, 2004, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Flipper

Clearly hominid palaeontology left a lot to be desired at the turn of the century, slightly more than 30 years after Darwin published The Origin of Species. I think science has moved on a bit since then though.

But someone forgot to tell the museums to catch up....

Jukia
May 19th, 2004, 09:13 AM
And someone forgot to tell Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI to do good science. But that's OK, you can just continue to complain about hoaxs perpetrated by others an ignore plain incompetence.

Flipper
May 19th, 2004, 09:23 AM
Nineveh:

Well, I have to say that I've never seen Hesperopithecus (Nebraska Man) on display at any museum, nor in any text book. Have you ever seen the name Hesperopithecus on display anywhere? It's quite an unusual one, so it probably would stick in your mind.

And, as it turns out, I may have just taken the creationist cant on Java Man as read. It appears that a number of creationists are now accepting that JM is a hominid.


As mentioned above Lubenow, publishing in 1992, was one of the first major creationists to conclude that the Java Man skullcap did not belong to an ape. Bill Mehlert came to similar conclusion in a paper published in a creationist journal in 1994:

The finding of ER 3733 and WT 15000 therefore appears to strongly reinforce the validity of Java and Peking Man. The clear similarities shared by all four (where skeletal and cranial material available), render untenable any claims that the two Asian specimens are nothing more than exceptionally large apes. (Mehlert 1994)

Following this many of the better-informed creationists decided that the skullcap which had hitherto belonged to an ape was in fact human, such that Carl Wieland, the CEO of Answers in Genesis was able to write in 1998 (in a review of Richard Milton's book Shattering the myths of Darwinism) that [Milton's] statement that the Java Man remains are now thought to be simply those of an extinct, giant gibbon-like creature is simply false. He appears to have been misled by the myth (commenced by evolutionists, and perpetuated in both creationist and evolutionist works since) that Eugene Dubois, the discoverer of Java Man, recanted and called his discovery a 'giant gibbon'. Knowledgable creationists do not make this sort of claim anymore. (Wieland 1998)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html

Not quite so open and shut now, is it?

Dimo
May 19th, 2004, 11:14 AM
Nineveh posted:

"Junk" is somewhat a misnomer, because molecular biology remains a young science. Segments of DNA may function in additional ways that have not yet been discovered, which might suggest uses for much or all of the junk. Scientists generally keep this likelihood in mind even as they persist in using the word "junk," which for better or worse has stuck."

Dimo:

Well in your case it was definitely for the worse. So you agree with me. Why was that like pulling teeth? Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?

Dimo
May 19th, 2004, 11:34 AM
Nineveh posted:

And what support other than you-like-it-better does evo have? ("Most scientists agree" won't cut it. "Most scientists" can be completely wrong, too. An example is the appendix, etc.)

Dimo:

It is the best explanation for origins in the area of natural philosophy. Since noone has any thing other than inferrence, which is based on ignorance, to support the idea that origins is the result of the "supernatural".

Again it is the methodology of YEC's that I do not trust. To me this is there modus operandi.

1.) I want to believe in eternal salvation for my own comfort. I want
to believe that my spiritual individual soul will have a nice cozy
place to go after physical death.

2.) The fundamentalist view of scriptures offers this promise.

3.) They accept this "free gift", as Bob has termed it.

4.) With this free gift there are some other requirements. One of
these, and the one at issue regarding natural philosophy is:

Strict adherence to a literal interpretation of Genesis, unless it can be proved to 100% certainty that a passage is not literal. This interpretation is determined by considereing an ancient tradition as greater than current reasoning. This specific tradition was started and propagated by the upper echelon of people from that period of time and used to subjugate the less fortunate members of society.

All of this is to ensure that the individual concerned has enternal life in heaven.

Now you tell me why I should trust the elite class from the past to dictate to me my understanding of natural philosophy?

And why I should trust modern day people who are more concerned with their peculiar individual ideas of eternal salvation than searching for knowledge in the here and now?

Dimo
May 19th, 2004, 11:49 AM
Nineveh posted:

You should see the vid on Mt St Helens. Things happen a lot more rapidly than one might be lead to believe through evo

Dimo:

Those who truly understand natural philosophy do not deny that catastrophes happen. There is nothing in the material sciences that negate rapid environmental changes such as what happened at Mt St Helens.

You may view environmental catastrophes as evidence for a YEC model of origins. But they are equal if not better support for the naturalistic model of origins. The natualistic model of origins has evidence that supports quite a few medium and large scale catastrophes. Mt St Hellens is considered small scale in the naturalistic model.

Dimo
May 19th, 2004, 11:53 AM
Nineveh posted:

But someone forgot to tell the museums to catch up....

Dimo:

Well maybe we should prosecute the currators for not keeping up with the newest scientific findings. If we did that, I think the first museums on the list would be YEC museums.

Nineveh
May 19th, 2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Flipper

Nineveh:

Well, I have to say that I've never seen Hesperopithecus (Nebraska Man) on display at any museum, nor in any text book. Have you ever seen the name Hesperopithecus on display anywhere? It's quite an unusual one, so it probably would stick in your mind.

And, as it turns out, I may have just taken the creationist cant on Java Man as read. It appears that a number of creationists are now accepting that JM is a hominid.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html

Not quite so open and shut now, is it?

You are missing the point of the example I was giving to Jukia. I have seen the stories woven together on display in museums spawned by a few bones.

Nineveh
May 19th, 2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Jukia

And someone forgot to tell Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI to do good science. But that's OK, you can just continue to complain about hoaxs perpetrated by others an ignore plain incompetence.

Good reply to my post. lol

Nineveh
May 19th, 2004, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Dimo

Nineveh posted:

"Junk" is somewhat a misnomer, because molecular biology remains a young science. Segments of DNA may function in additional ways that have not yet been discovered, which might suggest uses for much or all of the junk. Scientists generally keep this likelihood in mind even as they persist in using the word "junk," which for better or worse has stuck."

Dimo:

Well in your case it was definitely for the worse. So you agree with me. Why was that like pulling teeth? Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?

You quoted the quote from a source that supports my position, even scientists are rather embarrased they labled something they had no clue about something like "junk". Such is evo.

Anyway, as to your next few posts, I will ask you to stick to your and my convo. I've noticed before you tend to jump into an ongoing convo and it only serves to confuse what's being talked about. (that and I don't feel like cutting and pasting 4 separate posts into one, it's a pain in the butt. It helps to address one post to a person instead of so many in succession.) Thank you in advance :)

aharvey
May 19th, 2004, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by bob b

If one defines "genius" by IQ and academic honors then Brown is a genius. Nevertheless his concept must stand or fall depending on the evidence and it is very difficult to verify events that happened in the far past.

To what "far past" might you be referring? 4000 years isn't that long ago. We've got lots of anthropological, historical, archaelogical data from thousands of years ago. Why in the world would you think that data relating to the natural world would be any less available? This sounds like a copout to me.


Originally posted by bob b

His theory is consistent with scripture, which is more than one can say about the vague "millions of years" concept favored by most scientists working in the field of Origins.

"Vague" must mean something different to you than to me. When I asked about the maximum acceptable age of the earth, you told me that the YEC estimate of the age of the earth was about 6,000 years, with an upper limit of 10,000 years. Your upper limit is 167% of your estimate! Current scientific estimates put the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years (okay, 4,500 million years, since you used "millions" in your complaint); I'm pretty sure no scientist would set the upper limit of that estimate to 7,500 million years!

Dimo
May 19th, 2004, 04:05 PM
Nineveh posted:

You quoted the quote from a source that supports my position, even scientists are rather embarrased they labled something they had no clue about something like "junk".

Dimo:

I know I took it from one of your posts. Embarassed that words created and understood by laypersons are often not sufficient in transferring the complete message of a scientific idea, maybe. I don't think this is support for your position. I will cut and paste my previous response that you left out, in the hopes that you will answer this time:

"Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?"

Nineveh posted:

Such is evo.

Dimo:

Poor communication between professionals and lay persons is a problem with most disciplines. Natural philosophy is no exception.

Got anything else?

Stratnerd
May 19th, 2004, 05:06 PM
N -

> They were presented as one fossil, a "missing link".

Now they are? Could you provide a link/evidence?


Why you insist this hoax can be worth anything but an embarrasment to National Geographic and any museum that makes a display on this "missing link" is beyond me. NO NO NO NO... AGAIN, YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH I thought NG was stupid to run the piece without having several experts take a look at it and scan it for validity. Like YOU posted the guy saw that it was a composite so now they study yhe individual pieces. :doh:


It's the evos that that didn't understand not all DNA coded for genes, so creationists did all the work and have been making all the discoveries? Scientists can only infer what the evidence tells them. But you never said how the creationist perspective is or could be superior - why's that?


I thought Science and Nature were two of those "peer review" things you keep talking about... smart butt, they are but it is the subject matter I avoid. GET IT??

Nineveh
May 19th, 2004, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Dimo

Nineveh posted:

You quoted the quote from a source that supports my position, even scientists are rather embarrased they labled something they had no clue about something like "junk".

I know I took it from one of your posts. Embarassed that words created and understood by laypersons are often not sufficient in transferring the complete message of a scientific idea. I don't think this is support for your position. I will cut and paste my previous response that you left out, in the hopes that you will answer this time:

"Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?"

Nineveh posted:

Such is evo.

Dimo:

Poor communication between professionals and lay persons is a problem with most disciplines. Natural philosophy is no exception.

Got anything else?

Here, if you are so concerned with "lay person's understanding" help me out with the first question I asked you....

"I would really like to read up on "may become useful in the future". Got a link? " Check post 81 if you need context.

Nineveh
May 19th, 2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

> They were presented as one fossil, a "missing link".

Now they are? Could you provide a link/evidence?

Did you miss the cover of National Geographic or the link to their "error correction" or something?


NO NO NO NO... AGAIN, YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH I thought NG was stupid to run the piece without having several experts take a look at it and scan it for validity. Like YOU posted the guy saw that it was a composite so now they study yhe individual pieces. :doh:

Let me ask you simply:

Why do they even need tampered with fossils to study? It's not like we don't have any.


so creationists did all the work and have been making all the discoveries? Scientists can only infer what the evidence tells them. But you never said how the creationist perspective is or could be superior - why's that?

I think your attitude reflects the general attitude toward the field. Any finding is poo-pooed for any number of reasons. "Peer review" ring a bell?


smart butt, they are but it is the subject matter I avoid. GET IT??

LOL... ok. I just think it will be interesting to watch how "Joan's" "debunking" of a darwin theory plays out :)

Dimo
May 20th, 2004, 04:30 PM
Nineveh poseted:

"I would really like to read up on "may become useful in the future". Got a link? " Check post 81 if you need context.

Dimo:

No I really don't have any specific links. This is a pattern and a realtionship that I notice when researching and studying animal behavior and their relevant phenotype characteristics.

I can give you some examples, but I really don't think you are interested in considering this view.

If you are interested, you don't have to give up your strongly held believes right now, but humor me for a little while.

One of the most obvious examples can be seen in human evolutionary development. If you follow the path backwards, we are left with the inevitable conclusion that our ancestors had hair covering virtually all of their bodies. Humans have substantially less hair. For the most part humans whose ancestors are from warmer climates like nubians, have smaller and more fine hair on their bodies than peoples from colder climates. I'm not talking about hair on the head, face, under the arms or in the pubic area. In general if you look at the whole of the human race, the further our ancestry is from the equator, the thicker and longer the hair grows. People from the north or germanic people have the thickest and longest hair on their bodies. According to the current understanding of human evolution we emerged from Africa around 70,000 years ago. As the humans moved into colder climates, genetic variation tapped into the stored reservoir of DNA that allowed more hair covering on our bodies. This gave these people a reproductive advantage in colder climates.

Asians seem to defy this principle, since most them have small and fine hairs on their bodies. Perhaps with Asians there occupation of colder climates is more recent. Of course I have also not had the oppurtunity to see as many Asians as Nubians or Caucasians.

Also Nineveh, there are many, many more examples if you just look.

Now I know that you are going to try and prove me wrong by holding minute dicrepancies and small inaccuracies in what I have posted. But go ahead, I am ready.

Nineveh, now can you answer the question I have asked a couple of times already?

"Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?"

Oh and by the way I'm sorry to confuse you with all those posts addressing the details of your claims.

Free-Agent Smith
May 20th, 2004, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

yea, you keep saying that but you, by your own admission, aren't looking. I don't look for fossil connections because I got tired of finding nothing.

Darwin, over 150 years ago, provided reasons why we shouldn't find very many fossils of intermediates. I would read his chapters in Origin of Species. To sum it up, the conditions that favor fossilization are rare enough that they don't capture/sample all that is going on. Don't bother quoting Darwin. He didn't have as much faith in his theory as the evolutionists who quote it.


heck no, why should they? completely different processes.
then, given a global flood, why don't we find a single heavy layer, then a single medium layer, then a fine layer, and organisms sorted out by weight? The current of the water affects how well sediment or dead animals settle.


Bob B., is quite familiar with all these since he has suggested them. In fact, the hydroplate theory is part of the super-tectonics. The superspeciation thing is use when accounting for the few thousand years between Noah's kinds and all the species today. Super light speed to account to the star light/distance problem. All ad hoc explanation meant to explain way problems that reality and logic present. Problem is they leave more unexplained. Then if bob b knows more than you about it then when I get time I will talk to him about it.


evolution works through mutations that are random as well as the interaction with the environment. The likelihood that the same combination of mutations that occurred to produce us will occur in a another lineage is ~ nil. Also, given the intelligence of apes now and the other species of primates, I would say they they too have become more intelligent. Since you said it, I'm sure you can prove that like you ask of the creationists.


we never know for sure but that's what the evidence suggests.
What evidence?

by being out in the field What was found in the field with the prokaryotes? Can you show me some of those fossils?

Dimo
May 20th, 2004, 05:23 PM
Agent Smith posted:

I don't look for fossil connections because I got tired of finding nothing.

Dimo:

Well its a good thing that your opinions are irrelevant to this field then.

Agent Smith posted:

Don't bother quoting Darwin. He didn't have as much faith in his theory as the evolutionists who quote it.

Dimo:

I don't think darwin had "faith" in his theory. Faith comes from the heart. Empirical knowledge comes from the intellect.

Agent Smith posted:

The current of the water affects how well sediment or dead animals settle.

Dimo:

Yes, and?


quote:
we never know for sure but that's what the evidence suggests.

Agent Smith posted:

What evidence?

Dimo:

The evidence you cannot see, because of the log in your eye.


quote:
by being out in the field

Agent Smith posted:

Can you show me some of those fossils?

Dimo:

No. but there are geochemists and paleobiologist that can show you.

Free-Agent Smith
May 20th, 2004, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Dimo


I would say that your post was interesting but it wasn't.
I would even say that it was intelligent but it wasn't.
I would suggest that you are a really bright, intelligent and an up-and-coming genius but you aren't.
I would say that you read posts very well but that would be stupid of me to say also since in an earlier post in this thread I made a post (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=527132#post527132) suggesting my ignorance in this area of study and you obviously missed it.

But thanks for stepping in for Stratnerd. I'm sure he will appreciate your attempt.

Nineveh
May 20th, 2004, 06:13 PM
Nineveh asks:

"I would really like to read up on "may become useful in the future". Got a link? " Check post 81 if you need context.



Originally posted by Dimo
No I really don't have any specific links. This is a pattern and a realtionship that I notice when researching and studying animal behavior and their relevant phenotype characteristics.

I don't mean to sound flippant, be we were discussing how I didn't understand "junk DNA". You made the comment about "junk DNA" saying, "may become useful in the future". I wasn't really interested in your opinion on the matter but the "science" behind your opinion. "Cuz I said so", doesn't really support your idea that Science thinks of "junk DNA" in the terms of "future use".


I can give you some examples, but I really don't think you are interested in considering this view.

After being pointed out by you as as being one of the "unlearned" about such terminology (junk DNA) and it's meaning, it seems your attitude doesn't reflect sharing your knowledge on the "future use" of "junk DNA".


If you are interested, you don't have to give up your strongly held believes right now, but humor me for a little while.

Well, no. I really didn't want to waste my time with, "cuz Dimo thinks "junk DNA" has a "future use". I was sorta hoping for some "science" that supported your view on it.


One of the most obvious examples can be seen in human evolutionary development. If you follow the path backwards, we are left with the inevitable conclusion that our ancestors had hair covering virtually all of their bodies. Humans have substantially less hair. For the most part humans whose ancestors are from warmer climates like nubians, have smaller and more fine hair on their bodies than peoples from colder climates. I'm not talking about hair on the head, face, under the arms or in the pubic area. In general if you look at the whole of the human race, the further our ancestry is from the equator, the thicker and longer the hair grows. People from the north or germanic people have the thickest and longest hair on their bodies. According to the current understanding of human evolution we emerged from Africa around 70,000 years ago. As the humans moved into colder climates, genetic variation tapped into the stored reservoir of DNA that allowed more hair covering on our bodies. This gave these people a reproductive advantage in colder climates.

That sounds like adapting to a colder climate.

But anyway... back to "junk DNA" and how scientists believe it has a "future use".


Asians seem to defy this principle, since most them have small and fine hairs on their bodies. Perhaps with Asians there occupation of colder climates is more recent. Of course I have also not had the oppurtunity to see as many Asians as Nubians or Caucasians.

...oh ...sorry you weren't done explaining hair....


Also Nineveh, there are many, many more examples if you just look.

I was just wondering if you had any links to the "scientific" "evidence" that supports your view of "junk DNA" having a "future use"....


Now I know that you are going to try and prove me wrong by holding minute dicrepancies and small inaccuracies in what I have posted. But go ahead, I am ready.

Well, the most glaring accusation I have is, you offered me your opinion on hair but no "peer reviewed" studies in the field that supports your claim "junk DNA" has a "future use".


Nineveh, now can you answer the question I have asked a couple of times already?

"Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?"

I never claimed it was evidence against "natural philosophy". It takes an attitude like yours to lable something so mysterious and wonderous as DNA something like "junk".


Oh and by the way I'm sorry to confuse you with all those posts addressing the details of your claims.

S'ok :) You know I'm a lil slow, so making it easy for me to keep up is a credit to you:)

Stratnerd
May 20th, 2004, 06:19 PM
Did you miss the cover of National Geographic or the link to their "error correction" or something? you make it sound like NG knew it was a faux composite and still presented it. They were duped and deservedly so.. unlike you are trying to make it sound I thought they were idiots to shortcut the review process. Of course, the whole point to this conversation was the importance of creationists to this process. It was science that uncovered the fraud and science moves on.


Why do they even need tampered with fossils to study? It's not like we don't have any. A chinese quarry person put the fossil together not a paleo seeking to fill the missing link. It was the paleos that uncovered the fraud. It's how science works.


Any finding is poo-pooed for any number of reasons. "Peer review" ring a bell? Huh? All findings from everyone get poo-pooed first. HOW DO YOU THINK THE NG FRAUD WAS UNCOVERED! It just the creationists don't present anything that explains data better. As I've pointed out several times over and over, creationists explanations are ad hoc to explain away evidence and usually create more problems than the solve.

Stratnerd
May 20th, 2004, 06:30 PM
I don't look for fossil connections because I got tired of finding nothing. Well here's one... Archaeopteryx.


Don't bother quoting Darwin. He didn't have as much faith in his theory as the evolutionists who quote it. I don't care if Darwin gave it up - try disputing facts. Also, Darwin had lot's-o-faith in his geological and biological observations. Maybe you should read Origins and see so instead taking creationists web sites words.


The current of the water affects how well sediment or dead animals settle. yea, that was my point about why deltas are different from other places.

Since you said it, I'm sure you can prove that like you ask of the creationists. are you kidding it is just logic.


What evidence? ha ha ha..... man... you're full of 'em.


What was found in the field with the prokaryotes? Can you show me some of those fossils?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambrian/archaean.html

BillyBob
May 20th, 2004, 06:37 PM
:darwinsm:

Man, I never get tired of this debate!!!! :chuckle:

Nineveh
May 20th, 2004, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

you make it sound like NG knew it was a faux composite and still presented it. They were duped and deservedly so.. unlike you are trying to make it sound I thought they were idiots to shortcut the review process. Of course, the whole point to this conversation was the importance of creationists to this process. It was science that uncovered the fraud and science moves on.

I'm sorry if you think that was my take on it, it's not.

What I believe is evos are so zealous for a missing link, sometimes they jump a little early. It's sort of a historical thing : thinks of Mr. Smith's post:

About your origional question, I already said it was a dishonest one, remember? You had to put 3 qualifications in 1 sentance....


A chinese quarry person put the fossil together not a paleo seeking to fill the missing link. It was the paleos that uncovered the fraud. It's how science works.

Well, I hope, with all of my heart, if these known hoaxes go on display this summer, they are displayed as hoaxes, not a missing link.


Huh? All findings from everyone get poo-pooed first. HOW DO YOU THINK THE NG FRAUD WAS UNCOVERED! It just the creationists don't present anything that explains data better. As I've pointed out several times over and over, creationists explanations are ad hoc to explain away evidence and usually create more problems than the solve.

It took 35 years for the truth to come out over Java Ape-Man. So I find it hard to believe your claim "all findings" are so closely scrutinized at first.

LOL yes, we agree there :) Creationism does create more problems for evo than it solves :)

Stratnerd
May 20th, 2004, 06:54 PM
What I believe is evos are so zealous for a missing link, sometimes they jump a little early. It's sort of a historical thing : thinks of Mr. Smith's post: NG is out to make money. What could scientists gain by yet another fossil supporting evolution. It's already a well-accepted theory/paradigm within the scientific community and evolutionary biology projects are well-funded. There's nothing to gain - even for birds and dino debate there are many other fossils to support that particular supposition. It came down to people wanting to make buck. Again, evos exposed it and creationists had nothing to do with it.

About your origional question, I already said it was a dishonest one, remember? You had to put 3 qualifications in 1 sentance.... I don't get how it was DISHONEST... qualifiers yes because I wanted something specific. Here, I'll make it easy: what frauds have creationists exposed?


It took 35 years for the truth to come out over Java Ape-Man. So I find it hard to believe your claim "all findings" are so closely scrutinized at first. When was that? There's a different standard today - and thankfully so.
[

Nineveh
May 20th, 2004, 07:02 PM
THE DINOSAUR MUSEUM
World-renowned paleontologists Stephen and Sylvia Czerkas have developed this collection of treasures for children of all ages. See the Archaeoraptor, the "missing link" between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds....

http://www.southeastutah.org/tourism/museums.htm

Dimo
May 20th, 2004, 07:02 PM
Nineveh posted:

I don't mean to sound flippant, be we were discussing how I didn't understand "junk DNA". You made the comment about "junk DNA" saying, "may become useful in the future". I wasn't really interested in your opinion on the matter but the "science" behind your opinion. "Cuz I said so", doesn't really support your idea that Science thinks of "junk DNA" in the terms of "future use".

Dimo:

Sorry. But I am very ignorant whe it comes to genotype metamorpheses. Through my understanding of behavioral biology, I can see the manifestations of these, however. Again I do not expect you to take my word for it. I would just ask you to consider what I have to say about this. There are many sources you can use to find this information. If I believed that finding these links for you would have any effect, I would search for you.


Nineveh posted:

After being pointed out by you as as being one of the "unlearned" about such terminology (junk DNA) and it's meaning, it seems your attitude doesn't reflect sharing your knowledge on the "future use" of "junk DNA".

Dimo:

We are all ignorant of many things. I am no exception. The only difference between you and I is that I do not see ignorance as a reason to become a fundamentalist.

Nineveh posted:

That sounds like adapting to a colder climate.

Dimo:

And what exactly do you think the mechanisms for adaption are?

Nineveh posted:

But anyway... back to "junk DNA" and how scientists believe it has a "future use".

Dimo:

I didn't think we left that subject.

Nineveh posted:

I was just wondering if you had any links to the "scientific" "evidence" that supports your view of "junk DNA" having a "future use"....

Dimo:

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Which kind of evidence would be compelling for you?

Does it have to from scietific journal?

Nineveh posted:

Well, the most glaring accusation I have is, you offered me your opinion on hair but no "peer reviewed" studies in the field that supports your claim "junk DNA" has a "future use".

Dimo:

Please tell me how apparently ineffective DNA for the current phenotype cannot have a possible future use?

Previous qoute:

"Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?"

Nineveh posted:

I never claimed it was evidence against "natural philosophy".

Dimo:

That was the implication of your argument.

Nineveh posted:

It takes an attitude like yours to lable something so mysterious and wonderous as DNA something like "junk".

Dimo:

I never claimed that any DNA is really "junk" DNA. That was a misnomer that you grasped to try and undermine natural philosophy.

Previous quote:
Oh and by the way I'm sorry to confuse you with all those posts addressing the details of your claims.

Nineveh posted:

S'ok You know I'm a lil slow, so making it easy for me to keep up is a credit to you.

Dimo:

I really don't think you'ld like to give me credit for anything.

Stratnerd
May 20th, 2004, 07:08 PM
N-

$50 that the Archaeoraptor exhibit no longer exists...

Free-Agent Smith
May 20th, 2004, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

Well here's one... Archaeopteryx.[quote]I looked this up on the net and found that eight fossils of this bird exsist. I understand the comparisons they were making with these fossils. It reminds me of a duck bill platapus. It lives but defies explanation for it's physical make-up. I'll look into this and come back later on it. Thank you for the Archaeopteryx.

[quote]
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambrian/archaean.html
It took me a few to go through the pages on the website before I found this explanation. I will look into this also and come back when I get information.


From the link you gave me:
prokaryotic -- Literally "before the nucleus", the term applies to all bacteria and archaea. Prokaryotic cells have no internal membranes or cytoskeleton. Their DNA is circular, not linear.

Stratnerd
May 20th, 2004, 07:17 PM
It reminds me of a duck bill platapus. It lives but defies explanation for it's physical make-up. I'll look into this and come back later on it. Thank you for the Archaeopteryx.

the platypus does NOT defy explanation. it's called a duck-bill because of the superficial appearence. The "bill" is actually lips not the same bone structure or the keratin covering of a duck (or any bird). It lays eggs for sure but it belongs to an ancestral group of mammals that split off from the eutherians (placental mammals). It also has a coracoid bone (strut around the "collar bone" area) which is also ancestral. Evidence that this is all ancestral - grind up the DNA (that has nothing to do with those features) and you'll find that the platypus also has ancestral type DNA (more like the supposed ancestors). But anyway, Archaeopteryx shares features that are only found in birds and some that are not typical of moderns birds but more like the supposed ancestor.

If that isn't an intermediate then please define an intermediate for me.

Nineveh
May 20th, 2004, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by Dimo
Sorry. But I am very ignorant whe it comes to genotype metamorpheses. Through my understanding of behavioral biology, I can see the manifestations of these, however. Again I do not expect you to take my word for it. I would just ask you to consider what I have to say about this. There are many sources you can use to find this information. If I believed that finding these links for you would have any effect, I would search for you.

How about we finish up with science offering some information on your belief "junk DNA" has a "future use" first, ok? Hey, bob b at least offered Dr. Walt Brown's web site so Jukia could look over the info...


We are all ignorant of many things. I am no exception. The only difference between you and I is that I do not see ignorance as a reason to become a fundamentalist.

Neither do I :) I see it as a reason to become a pompus evolutionist.


And what exactly do you think the mechanisms for adaption are?

A different topic :)


I didn't think we left that subject.

No, we haven't, is there any scientific support for your view or not?


What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Your usual standard of peer reviewed publication.


Which kind of evidence would be compelling for you?

Evidence there is information on this planet that supports your view?


Does it have to from scietific journal?

Why would you offer less than you demand from others?


Please tell me how apparently ineffective DNA for the current phenotype cannot have a future use?

If you are asking why "junk DNA' can't have a "future use"....

Well you see, I don't know and you are keeping it a secret :)


That was the implication of your argument.

Dimo, you are having trouble giving support for your own understandings, please don't attempt to discern mine.


I never claimed that any DNA is really "junk" DNA. That was a misnomer that you grasped to try and undermine natural philosophy.

No, I put the definition down and you are still trying to find some info on your theory "junk DNA" has a "future use".


I really don't think you'ld like to give me credit for anything.

It's obvious you will think as you like :)

Nineveh
May 20th, 2004, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

N-

$50 that the Archaeoraptor exhibit no longer exists...

http://www.dinosaur-museum.org/featheredinosaurs/index.html


Several of the fossils in this volume will be featured in the 2004/05 traveling museum exhibit: Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight, organized by The Dinosaur Museum and the Liaoning Fossil Administration Office. The exhibit will premiere at the San Diego Natural History Museum from February 7 through September 7, 2004 and then continue to travel to other museums.

The link has a drawing of a ( "whole cloth" ) Archaeoraptor but does not mention the bones specifically. I guess if you really care, take that $50 and visit a museum that claims to have them on display.

Free-Agent Smith
May 20th, 2004, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

the platypus does NOT defy explanation. it's called a duck-bill because of the superficial appearence. The "bill" is actually lips not the same bone structure or the keratin covering of a duck (or any bird). It lays eggs for sure but it belongs to an ancestral group of mammals that split off from the eutherians (placental mammals). It also has a coracoid bone (strut around the "collar bone" area) which is also ancestral. Evidence that this is all ancestral - grind up the DNA (that has nothing to do with those features) and you'll find that the platypus also has ancestral type DNA (more like the supposed ancestors). But anyway, Archaeopteryx shares features that are only found in birds and some that are not typical of moderns birds but more like the supposed ancestor.

If that isn't an intermediate then please define an intermediate for me. From your description alone I would gather it was a cross between the mammals and marsupials. I still don't get the egg thing.

Stratnerd
May 20th, 2004, 07:50 PM
> From your description alone I would gather it was a cross between the mammals and marsupials. I still don't get the egg thing.

Actually, reptiles(!) and mammals. Evolution works by splitting. Each time each path (=population/species) goes on evolving independently of the other paths. In this case, there was a split from reptiles and one group evolved hair and later there was another split and one group evolved live young and later another split that evolved a placenta. But because one group evolved a particular character doesn't mean that another group needs to. Just like with monkeys, apes, humans and our common ancestor. We evolved a particular set of traits because we happen to have those particular mutations at a particular time in a particular context and those set of circumstances are totally unique in space/time and to a particular group.

One Eyed Jack
May 20th, 2004, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Agent Smith

From your description alone I would gather it was a cross between the mammals and marsupials.

Marsupials (young spend time developing in pouch) are one type of mammal, and placental mammals (bearing more or less fully developed live young) are another. The platypus, which lays eggs, is unlike either of these types.


I still don't get the egg thing.

Supposedly, mammals evolved from reptiles, most of which lay eggs.

Dimo
May 20th, 2004, 08:34 PM
quote:
And what exactly do you think the mechanisms for adaption are?

Ninveh posted:

A different topic.

Dimo:

Adaption is another way of referring to genetic variation and natural selection. So no it not a different topic. You probably call this micro-evolution.

Dimo
May 20th, 2004, 08:37 PM
quote:
I really don't think you'ld like to give me credit for anything.

Nineveh posted:

It's obvious you will think as you like

Dimo:

Why should I think as you like?

bob b
May 20th, 2004, 09:14 PM
If that isn't an intermediate then please define an intermediate for me.

An "intermediate" is a lifeform which has some characteristics of one classification of lifeforms as well as some characteristics of a different classification of lifeforms: the lifeform is "intermediate" between the two classifications.

These classifications were of course invented by humans as an aid in discussing the myriad numbers of different types of creatures. Unfortunately not all creatures fit nicely into the classifications, although most do.

Technically this has nothing to do with ancestry, although the term "intermediate" has connotations in common usage that frequently cause the general public to assume that it does (probably because some junior evolutionists tell them it does).

Jukia
May 21st, 2004, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by bob b

Technically this has nothing to do with ancestry, although the term "intermediate" has connotations in common usage that frequently cause the general public to assume that it does (probably because some junior evolutionists tell them it does).

Interesting concept--nothing to do with ancestry--since creationists are always screaming about not seeing any intermediate fossils.

Assume for a moment that you wish to investigate ancestry, without the Bible, and using current scientific technology, what would you suggest as a line of investigation?

Nineveh
May 21st, 2004, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by Dimo

Adaption is another way of referring to genetic variation and natural selection. So no it not a different topic. You probably call this micro-evolution.

Look, if you have no information to back up your belief science views "junk DNA" with a "future use", say so. If not quit trying to act like I'm a retard by introducing a bunch of different topics, ok?

Personally, I find it hard to believe natural selection has a characteristic like precognition.

And because you have trouble with the one post idea:


Originally posted by Dimo
Why should I think as you like?

Because my intention was praise. The problem is, you are viewing my intention through your pompous attitude.

Jukia
May 21st, 2004, 05:52 AM
Nineveh: Boy do these threads tend to take on a life of their own!

Your original post on this thread was touting Coral Ridge's 4000 year old mammoth bones from FL. When I spoke with Tom DeRosa it was clear that the scientific investigation they undertook was sadly lacking in method and results. Yet I have not seen anyone suggesting that perhaps Coral Ridge should back off on its claims unless and until they can better substantiate them. Instead we get a list of hoaxes and fabrications put forth by "evolutonists".

I don't think that really is the point. Garbage is garbage whether it comes from creationists or evolutionists and should be exposed for what it is. Those in the main stream scientific community seem to have less difficulty in exposing fraud (or simple mistakes) than creationists.

Are you still willing to suggest that the Coral Ridge FL mammoth bones are only 4000 years old?

Nineveh
May 21st, 2004, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by Jukia

Nineveh: Boy do these threads tend to take on a life of their own!

Your original post on this thread was touting Coral Ridge's 4000 year old mammoth bones from FL. When I spoke with Tom DeRosa it was clear that the scientific investigation they undertook was sadly lacking in method and results. Yet I have not seen anyone suggesting that perhaps Coral Ridge should back off on its claims unless and until they can better substantiate them. Instead we get a list of hoaxes and fabrications put forth by "evolutonists".

Do you really want to compare your issue with SCI's dating methods to museums displaying hoax archaeoraptor "fossils"?

Didn't OEJ already travel down this road of concern with you?


I don't think that really is the point. Garbage is garbage whether it comes from creationists or evolutionists and should be exposed for what it is. Those in the main stream scientific community seem to have less difficulty in exposing fraud (or simple mistakes) than creationists.

And that is why the archaeoraptor hoax is being promoted to children?


Are you still willing to suggest that the Coral Ridge FL mammoth bones are only 4000 years old?

Not because of "dating" methods :)

Jukia
May 21st, 2004, 06:33 AM
Nineveh: No, if the science is wrong then it is wrong. So if the archeoraptor is a hoax--expose it as such and get rid of it.

Without dating methods, are you still willing to suggest that the FL mammoth bones are 4000 years old? If so why? If not why? And if the science is no good then why should Coral Ridge or CSI put it forth?

Nineveh
May 21st, 2004, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by Jukia
Nineveh: No, if the science is wrong then it is wrong. So if the archeoraptor is a hoax--expose it as such and get rid of it.

The archeoraptor is on display, or did you miss the links? If so, page page back. Those mammoth bones are really mammoth bones. They are presented as mammoth bones, not presented as a "missing link" for the theory-of-the-day. You may not like the dating method, sorry I can't help you with that any more than OEJ could.


Without dating methods, are you still willing to suggest that the FL mammoth bones are 4000 years old?

Yes, about that I wager.


If so why?

One reason is because erosion would have wasted them in the amount of time evo suggests. The best info I could get through a search suggests 2-5 million years.


And if the science is no good then why should Coral Ridge or CSI put it forth?

What you are really meaning to say is: If I don't like the dating method then they should be held accountable according to a method of dating I find to be better.

Did you bother to tell the gent you called any of this? If so, what was his reply?

aharvey
May 21st, 2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Speaking of "science" news, have you gotten a load of the new reviews of Joan Roughgarden's Book in "Science" and "Nature" on bisexuality?

Alright, Nineveh, I have to ask: did you read these reviews (especially the one in Nature), or are you parroting some creationist site?

Nineveh
May 21st, 2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Alright, Nineveh, I have to ask: did you read these reviews (especially the one in Nature), or are you parroting some creationist site?

No, I didn't read the reviews of the book, nor have I read the book, why should I?

I don't buy into a theory of sexual selection, nor do I believe a transsexual biologist has anything but an agenda to sell.

Did you? Was it good? What did I miss by using that time instead to dust, brush my teeth and breath?

aharvey
May 21st, 2004, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

No, I didn't read the reviews of the book, nor have I read the book, why should I?

I don't buy into a theory of sexual selection, nor do I believe a transsexual biologist has anything but an agenda to sell.

Did you? Was it good? What did I miss by using that time instead to dust, brush my teeth and breath?

Well, I’m genuinely relieved, as this means your posts on Archaeoraptor are uninformed instead of deceptive. The former is an honest mistake I can deal with, the latter is hard to stomach.

You see, the very same issue of Nature that contains the Roughgarden book review (which you did not read before heaping scorn on it; well done!) also contains a news story entitled “Feathered fossils cause a flap in museums.” This story discusses the controversy surrounding a traveling exhibit assembled by Stephen and Sylvia Czerkas (does the name ring a bell?). Here’s an excerpt from the story:

“Stephen Czerkas is an artist who is self-taught in palaeontology, and Sylvia serves as museum curator. Five years ago, the couple were involved in an international controversy after their museum bought a fossil, called Archaeoraptor, for $80,000 at a fossil show in Tucson, Arizona.

The fossil appeared in National Geographic magazine after failed attempts to publish it in both Nature and Science. But it was subsequently found to be a forged composite from two different species (see Nature 410, 539; 2001), put together in China to resemble a ‘missing link’ between dinosaurs and birds. {Nineveh, here’s the important part for you} It was returned there in 2000, and segments later generated scientific papers by Chinese authors and by Stephen Czerkas.”

So your claim that “the archaeoraptor hoax is being promoted to children” is completely incorrect. The specimen is not in the Czerkas’s private museum in Utah, despite what the web site of the San Juan County Community Development group implies. Even if it were, and allow me to reemphasize that it is not, the Czerkases are not professional paleontologists, and their museum is their own private museum, so they have the legal right to include whatever (legal) garbage they please in it, just like any private creationist web site or museum. But please stop thinking that this incident, which you’ve incorrectly characterized from the start, is in any way condoned by professional scientists. It is not.

Stratnerd
May 21st, 2004, 02:05 PM
The link has a drawing of a ( "whole cloth" ) Archaeoraptor but does not mention the bones specifically. I guess if you really care, take that $50 and visit a museum that claims to have them on display. I don't see any musuems that have A'raptor on display so the feathered dinosaurs probably include the others specimens.

Stratnerd
May 21st, 2004, 02:07 PM
Jukia -


Your original post on this thread was touting Coral Ridge's 4000 year old mammoth bones from FL. When I spoke with Tom DeRosa it was clear that the scientific investigation they undertook was sadly lacking in method and results. Yet I have not seen anyone suggesting that perhaps Coral Ridge should back off on its claims unless and until they can better substantiate them. Instead we get a list of hoaxes and fabrications put forth by "evolutonists".

I don't think that really is the point. Garbage is garbage whether it comes from creationists or evolutionists and should be exposed for what it is. Those in the main stream scientific community seem to have less difficulty in exposing fraud (or simple mistakes) than creationists.

AMEN!!!! Well said.

Jukia
May 21st, 2004, 02:08 PM
aharvey: Nice post. Amazing what a little background checking can uncover.

Stratnerd
May 21st, 2004, 02:12 PM
BoB.,


Technically this has nothing to do with ancestry that is exactly is the point of dispute. But in systematics characters are everything and has all relevence to the idenfication of ancestry.

Stratnerd
May 21st, 2004, 02:13 PM
I don't buy into a theory of sexual selection, for humans or all organisms? It can be shown very easily with other animals.

Dimo
May 21st, 2004, 07:32 PM
Nineveh, after considering that I do not have a comprehensive understanding of the genetic mechanisms regarding this subject of "future use", I realize that I cannot make a sound argument that what some call "junk" DNA has anything to do with the phenotype varations I mention.

I do believe, however that this issue is irrelevant to the overall thrust of what I believed to be your argument. If your argument is not that the term "junk" being a misnomer in any way undermines natural philosophy, then we are in agreement.

I am still not quite sure of the relevance of your argument. Are you saying that because some people do not have a comprehensive understanding of DNA, that the entire naturalistic model is incorrect?

Sorry if I seemed pompous, I did not mean to have the effect.

Dimo
May 21st, 2004, 07:43 PM
Nineveh posted:

Personally, I find it hard to believe natural selection has a characteristic like precognition.

Dimo:

I have to say that I do not know. Since I am not quite sure that what we term precognition is prerequisite. If there is DNA that carries potential for phenotype changes, it would not neccessarily have to be because of precognition.

Again, I am not quite sure of the relevance of your problem.

Free-Agent Smith
May 21st, 2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Well, I’m genuinely relieved, as this means your posts on Archaeoraptor are uninformed instead of deceptive. The former is an honest mistake I can deal with, the latter is hard to stomach.

You see, the very same issue of Nature that contains the Roughgarden book review (which you did not read before heaping scorn on it; well done!) also contains a news story entitled “Feathered fossils cause a flap in museums.” This story discusses the controversy surrounding a traveling exhibit assembled by Stephen and Sylvia Czerkas (does the name ring a bell?). Here’s an excerpt from the story:

“Stephen Czerkas is an artist who is self-taught in palaeontology, and Sylvia serves as museum curator. Five years ago, the couple were involved in an international controversy after their museum bought a fossil, called Archaeoraptor, for $80,000 at a fossil show in Tucson, Arizona.

The fossil appeared in National Geographic magazine after failed attempts to publish it in both Nature and Science. But it was subsequently found to be a forged composite from two different species (see Nature 410, 539; 2001), put together in China to resemble a ‘missing link’ between dinosaurs and birds. {Nineveh, here’s the important part for you} It was returned there in 2000, and segments later generated scientific papers by Chinese authors and by Stephen Czerkas.”

So your claim that “the archaeoraptor hoax is being promoted to children” is completely incorrect. The specimen is not in the Czerkas’s private museum in Utah, despite what the web site of the San Juan County Community Development group implies. Even if it were, and allow me to reemphasize that it is not, the Czerkases are not professional paleontologists, and their museum is their own private museum, so they have the legal right to include whatever (legal) garbage they please in it, just like any private creationist web site or museum. But please stop thinking that this incident, which you’ve incorrectly characterized from the start, is in any way condoned by professional scientists. It is not.
Apparently you missed this link (http://www.dinosaur-museum.org/featheredinosaurs/index.html) on the website?:think:
It appears that Nineveh is right and you are the one that is uninformed or deceptive. Which is it?

San Diego Natural History Museum (http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/feathered/index.html) "Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight ".

Free-Agent Smith
May 21st, 2004, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Jukia

aharvey: Nice post. Amazing what a little background checking can uncover. Yes, amazing isn't it?
:smirk: (http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/feathered/index.html)

Flipper
May 21st, 2004, 11:34 PM
Agent Smith:


Here is an image of one of six microraptor fossils from Liaoning that did pass the tomography test: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_742255.html?menu=news.scienceanddiscovery

Perhaps you creationist folk might spend time better tackling the mounting body of real evidence and less time fussing about one fake that only got airplay because an amateur circumnavigated the scientific process.

Flipper
May 21st, 2004, 11:37 PM
Nineveh:


It took 35 years for the truth to come out over Java Ape-Man.

Please explain?

Stratnerd
May 22nd, 2004, 08:13 AM
Apparently you missed this link on the website?
It appears that Nineveh is right and you are the one that is uninformed or deceptive. Which is it?

San Diego Natural History Museum "Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight ".

there are numerous feathered dinosaurs - but I didn't see where Archaeoraptor was presented in any of these links.

Flipper
May 22nd, 2004, 08:35 AM
I think Archaeoraptor is the crittur portrayed on the dust cover of Czerkas's book. I wondered about that too.

I note that text for the book reads:

Several of the fossils in this volume will be featured in the 2004/05 traveling museum exhibit: Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight, organized by The Dinosaur Museum and the Liaoning Fossil Administration Office.

Not sure if Archaeoraptor is actually in the book or not, but I doubt very much that it will be featured in the exhibition. The other page AS linked to didn't show or reference an Archaeoraptor.

Free-Agent Smith
May 22nd, 2004, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

there are numerous feathered dinosaurs - but I didn't see where Archaeoraptor was presented in any of these links. And from the article from SanDiego:



The recent discovery of spectacular fossils from China provides exciting new evidence concerning the on-going debate about the relationships of dinosaurs and birds and the origin of flight.

The traveling exhibition Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight, will premiere at the San Diego Natural History Museum on February 7, 2004, and continue through September 7, 2004. This exhibition is the largest display of significant fossils regarding the origins of birds ever shown outside of the People's Republic of China. The San Diego Natural History Museum is the only U.S. venue to display Feathered Dinosaurs.

Now since the Archaeoraptor was proven a hoax and it is supposed to be the missing link, how will the origin of flight be proven?


I won't argue the idea that some dino's had feathers. But I don't think they used them to fly or evovle into birds. The PTEROSAURS
didn't have feathers and they flew. Why would some dinsaurs need feathers to fly when others didn't?

Free-Agent Smith
May 22nd, 2004, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Flipper

Nineveh:



Please explain?
I quote this page (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns239.html).
from the article, again:

THE JAVA APE-MAN
In 1891 a Dutch army doctor, Eugene Dubois, stationed in Java, reported finding the "missing link" between man and animals! He discovered the top of a skull, three jaw teeth, and part of a thighbone. But he found them 70 feet apart, among many bones along a creek, over the period of a year! After completing his military service Dubois kept the bones in a trunk at home and sent pencil drawings to various evolutionary leaders and museums of the world who eagerly welcomed his "scientific" proof.

THE PITHECANTHROPUS ERECTUS!
Calling his find the Java Ape-Man or "Pithecanthropus erectus" (the ape-man that walks upright), evolutionists swallowed his "proof" without question and arrogantly declared to the world that the Ape-Man was 750,000 years old! Many leading scientists eagerly went to his Holland home to see for themselves those amazing bones, only for Dubois to turn them away at his door.

Finally, after about 35 years, the scientific world demanded to see and evaluate the bones for themselves. Twenty-four European scientists met and studied the bones. Ten said they were the bones of an ape; seven said they came from a man; and seven said they were not the bones of a "missing link!" No less an authority than H.G. Wells, the agnostic historian known for his two-volume Outline of History, said they were the bones of an ape. Even Dubois himself finally admitted that the bones were probably from an ape. But the Java Ape-Man has been paraded in museums and high school and college text books the world over as the "missing link" between man and animals, proving evolution! Almighty God must have had these worldly wise men in mind when He inspired the Apostle Paul to tell Timothy to "...keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called!" (1 Tim. 6:20).

Since you missed it back on page 3.

Flipper
May 22nd, 2004, 12:16 PM
Agent Smith:

I'm thinking you may have missed my follow-up post on page 10. Apparently, Nineveh did, even though I wrote it in reply to her.


And, as it turns out, I may have just taken the creationist cant on Java Man as read. It appears that a number of creationists are now accepting that JM is a hominid.

quote:
As mentioned above Lubenow, publishing in 1992, was one of the first major creationists to conclude that the Java Man skullcap did not belong to an ape. Bill Mehlert came to similar conclusion in a paper published in a creationist journal in 1994:

The finding of ER 3733 and WT 15000 therefore appears to strongly reinforce the validity of Java and Peking Man. The clear similarities shared by all four (where skeletal and cranial material available), render untenable any claims that the two Asian specimens are nothing more than exceptionally large apes. (Mehlert 1994)

Following this many of the better-informed creationists decided that the skullcap which had hitherto belonged to an ape was in fact human, such that Carl Wieland, the CEO of Answers in Genesis was able to write in 1998 (in a review of Richard Milton's book Shattering the myths of Darwinism) that [Milton's] statement that the Java Man remains are now thought to be simply those of an extinct, giant gibbon-like creature is simply false. He appears to have been misled by the myth (commenced by evolutionists, and perpetuated in both creationist and evolutionist works since) that Eugene Dubois, the discoverer of Java Man, recanted and called his discovery a 'giant gibbon'. Knowledgable creationists do not make this sort of claim anymore. (Wieland 1998)



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html

Not quite so open and shut now, is it?

So it seems not even the creationists are sure whether these bones are from an ape skull or a hominid skull (I presume most if not all would insist "human"). This sort of dilemma is much less troubling for evolutionary biology; it all sounds pretty transitional.

A review from talk origins of the skull cap fragments; plus Duane Gish still contends the skull cap is from an ape:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java15000.html

Some more info on Homo Erectus and how Java man may fit into the framework...

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2%20.htm

Stratnerd
May 22nd, 2004, 01:03 PM
AS,

I don't get your point with the bolded text... A'raptor was a hoax but were the others (including Caudipteryx, Sinosauropteryx, Archaeopteryx, Protarchaeopteryx)?

> But I don't think they used them to fly or evovle into birds.

Flight can be inferred from other adaptations and tested with models (same kind of stuff they do with athletes). But the fact that you don't believe in evolution is obvious.

> The PTEROSAURS didn't have feathers and they flew.


they also weren't dinosaurs

> Why would some dinsaurs need feathers to fly when others didn't?

feathers probably didn't evolve for flight....

evolution is a tinkerer and uses whatever works

Free-Agent Smith
May 23rd, 2004, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

AS,



Flight can be inferred from other adaptations and tested with models (same kind of stuff they do with athletes). But the fact that you don't believe in evolution is obvious. I don't always equate adaptation with evolution.
They are using the hoax as an example. The reason I believe this is because I have seen the visuals they are using and atleast one of them has been used to show what the A'raptor was supposed to have looked like.


> The PTEROSAURS didn't have feathers and they flew.

they also weren't dinosaurs
I have seen websites and exhibits that do say they are. Chicago's Museum of Natural History/Field Museum has suggested just the opposite of what you have.

Nineveh
May 23rd, 2004, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Well, I’m genuinely relieved, as this means your posts on Archaeoraptor are uninformed instead of deceptive. The former is an honest mistake I can deal with, the latter is hard to stomach.

Because I didn't read an unrelated book review but instead posted the link the the museum proclaiming the "Archaeoraptor" as the "missing link", I am "uninformed" or "deceptive"?
Where did you get your logic, Sears?


You see, the very same issue of Nature that contains the Roughgarden book review (which you did not read before heaping scorn on it; well done!) also contains a news story entitled “Feathered fossils cause a flap in museums.” This story discusses the controversy surrounding a traveling exhibit assembled by Stephen and Sylvia Czerkas (does the name ring a bell?). Here’s an excerpt from the story:

“Stephen Czerkas is an artist who is self-taught in palaeontology, and Sylvia serves as museum curator. Five years ago, the couple were involved in an international controversy after their museum bought a fossil, called Archaeoraptor, for $80,000 at a fossil show in Tucson, Arizona.

The fossil appeared in National Geographic magazine after failed attempts to publish it in both Nature and Science. But it was subsequently found to be a forged composite from two different species (see Nature 410, 539; 2001), put together in China to resemble a ‘missing link’ between dinosaurs and birds. {Nineveh, here’s the important part for you} It was returned there in 2000, and segments later generated scientific papers by Chinese authors and by Stephen Czerkas.”

So your claim that “the archaeoraptor hoax is being promoted to children” is completely incorrect. The specimen is not in the Czerkas’s private museum in Utah, despite what the web site of the San Juan County Community Development group implies. Even if it were, and allow me to reemphasize that it is not, the Czerkases are not professional paleontologists, and their museum is their own private museum, so they have the legal right to include whatever (legal) garbage they please in it, just like any private creationist web site or museum. But please stop thinking that this incident, which you’ve incorrectly characterized from the start, is in any way condoned by professional scientists. It is not.

Check the links, I didn't make their website.

"Alright, aharvey , I have to ask: did you see these fossils weren't on display (especially the one at that museum), or are you parroting some evo site?"

Will the other musuems that happen to display these fossils also be let off the hook so easily?

Nineveh
May 23rd, 2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Dimo

Nineveh, after considering that I do not have a comprehensive understanding of the genetic mechanisms regarding this subject of "future use", I realize that I cannot make a sound argument that what some call "junk" DNA has anything to do with the phenotype varations I mention.

I do believe, however that this issue is irrelevant to the overall thrust of what I believed to be your argument. If your argument is not that the term "junk" being a misnomer in any way undermines natural philosophy, then we are in agreement.

I am still not quite sure of the relevance of your argument. Are you saying that because some people do not have a comprehensive understanding of DNA, that the entire naturalistic model is incorrect?

Sorry if I seemed pompous, I did not mean to have the effect.

Dimo, really now. The reason you can't come up with evo-science backing your claim "junk DNA" has a "future use" is because it doesn't.

You wanted to appear to have an understanding of something you didn't, so you told a "little white lie" out of your ignorance. Sort of like what evo did when it named DNA it didn't understand as "junk". And that in a nut shell was my point: the world view of evo functions by the rule: "if you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with BS". Thank you for illustrating my point.

Nineveh
May 23rd, 2004, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

N -

Perhaps you can provide a recent example where scientist knew the truth but presented lies.... and was uncovered by creationists and not fellow scientists.

Well, I think what has happened here in this thread illustrates what happens on a larger scale. Museums (thank you for pointing out San Diego, Mr. Smith) are knowingly promoting a hoax. A couple of people who believe the creation account are drawing the evos attention to that fact and what is the outcome? Shoot the messenger.

The book is written by the hoax perps* yet their ideas on the "origin" of flight is being accepted at least in San Diego so far, and where else might this traveling show wind up? With or without their "missing link" I didn't see where this "origin of flight" is being displayed as a theory. Which is what "dinos to birds" is, another theory.


*Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight was organized by the Dinosaur Museum (http://www.dinosaur-museum.org/) of Blanding, Utah, and the Fossil Administration Office of Liaoning, China in collaboration with the Geological Institute, the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences. All photos copyright of Dinosaur Museum of Blanding, Utah.
cite (http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/feathered/index.html#overview)

Free-Agent Smith
May 23rd, 2004, 06:48 PM
I edited my last reply incase it might have been missed.

aharvey
May 24th, 2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Agent Smith

Apparently you missed this link (http://www.dinosaur-museum.org/featheredinosaurs/index.html) on the website?:think:
It appears that Nineveh is right and you are the one that is uninformed or deceptive. Which is it?

San Diego Natural History Museum (http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/feathered/index.html) "Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight ".

Which is it? Option 3: Nineveh is as wrong as ever and you both are misinformed. The hoaxed fossil is not in the United States, it's not part of the Feather Dinosaurs exhibit, and never was. Ninevah's original link was from a Utah county tourist bureau; the link you provided, in case you weren't aware of this, is from the private museum of the Czerkases, and the book being touted is their own book. The Nature article to which I referred is primarily about the Feathered Dinosaurs exhibit (which, again, does not and never did include Archaeoraptor). This is a private, traveling exhibit, again put together and "rented out" by the Czerkases; although it is currently showing at the San Diego Museum of Natural History, but it has run into trouble because it appears to contain at least a dozen illegally acquired fossils, which is an extremely serioius charge.

You guys need to consider your sources a little more carefully. Most people would consider Nature to be a more reliable source of scientific information than either a local tourist board web site or a self-promoting artist-fossil hunter who's repeatedly run into major problems in his fossil endeavors.

aharvey
May 24th, 2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Agent Smith

Now since the Archaeoraptor was proven a hoax and it is supposed to be the missing link, how will the origin of flight be proven?

Science doesn't prove anything; it provides evidence. And there is a whole suite of fossil evidence providing a fairly beautiful series of dinosaur-bird intermediates. I have no idea how many of these are in the Czerkases exhibit, though.


Originally posted by Agent Smith

I won't argue the idea that some dino's had feathers. But I don't think they used them to fly or evovle into birds. The PTEROSAURS didn't have feathers and they flew. Why would some dinsaurs need feathers to fly when others didn't?

1. Pterosaurs weren't dinosaurs.
2. Regardless, we can modernize your question a bit, from which perhaps you can answer it on your own:

"BATS don't have feathers and they fly. Why would some vertebrates need feathers to fly when others don't?"

Or, alternatively:

"OSTRICHES have feathers and they don't fly. Why would some birds need feathers when they don't even fly?"

Jukia
May 24th, 2004, 01:00 PM
A question. Coral Ridge and CSI claim to have done some studies that show the mammoth bones only 1% fossilized and therefore only 4000 years old. Now, ignoring the question of whether or not this is a legitimate method of dating (and at first blush it would appear to be), if the earth is only 6000 years old and if we had a world wide flood 4000 years ago, should not all fossils be only 1% or thereabout fossilized?

aharvey
May 24th, 2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Because I didn't read an unrelated book review but instead posted the link the the museum proclaiming the "Archaeoraptor" as the "missing link", I am "uninformed" or "deceptive"?
Where did you get your logic, Sears?

You didn't read my post very carefully. If you had read the Nature review of the Roughgarden article, this would have meant that you also would have had access to the article about the Czerkases exhibit. Since you've been making all these posts lately about this very issue (i.e., the Archaeoraptor hoax), I doubt very much that you would have overlooked this article on your way to the Roughgarden book review, which would have at least strongly suggested that you were describing a situation (i.e., a hoax that scientists fell for and that is still being shown to schoolchildren today) that you knew was false. That would have been deceptive. Since you didn't have access to the journal, I was therefore genuinely relieved that you were not being deceptive. Does this clarify the logic (and what I was not saying?)


Originally posted by Nineveh

Check the links, I didn't make their website.

I absolutely understand. However, don't you think you have some responsibility, at least to yourself, to at least consider the reliability of the source? After all, anyone can post anything on the web. You based your entire position on web sites from a Utah county tourist bureau trying to get people to come there and spend money and from someone promoting their own private museum and book for the same reason. This doesn't mean they're automatically wrong, but it should at least alert you to the possibility that they're not the most up-to-date, scientifically accurate, objective, or just generally reliable source of information, and that maybe you should look elsewhere for corroboration.


Originally posted by Nineveh

"Alright, aharvey , I have to ask: did you see these fossils weren't on display (especially the one at that museum), or are you parroting some evo site?"

I already provided my source of information: the top-tier scientific journal Nature. I can't check everything myself, but I do try to consider the source.


Originally posted by Nineveh

Will the other musuems that happen to display these fossils also be let off the hook so easily?

Off the hook for what? For showing a hoax? They're not. For showing illegally acquired fossils? That's what the Nature story was about, and if it turns out to be true, yes, there will be consequences. That's why most museums have declined to show the exhibit until the charges have been sorted out.

aharvey
May 24th, 2004, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Agent Smith

I have seen websites and exhibits that do say they are. Chicago's Museum of Natural History/Field Museum has suggested just the opposite of what you have.

I'd be interested in where they said that. If you go to the Field Museum web site and do a search on "pterosaurs," you get these results: (http://search.fmnh.org/query.html?rq=0&col=fm&qt=+pterosaurs&ql=) three different articles that clearly refer to dinosaurs and pterosaurs as distinct entities.

Nineveh
May 24th, 2004, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

You didn't read my post very carefully. If you had read the Nature review of the Roughgarden article, this would have meant that you also would have had access to the article about the Czerkases exhibit. Since you've been making all these posts lately about this very issue (i.e., the Archaeoraptor hoax), I doubt very much that you would have overlooked this article on your way to the Roughgarden book review, which would have at least strongly suggested that you were describing a situation (i.e., a hoax that scientists fell for and that is still being shown to schoolchildren today) that you knew was false. That would have been deceptive. Since you didn't have access to the journal, I was therefore genuinely relieved that you were not being deceptive. Does this clarify the logic (and what I was not saying?)

Well, if you want to claim the NEWS is only the NEWS if it comes from Nature, you might have a point.


I absolutely understand. However, don't you think you have some responsibility, at least to yourself, to at least consider the reliability of the source? After all, anyone can post anything on the web. You based your entire position on web sites from a Utah county tourist bureau trying to get people to come there and spend money and from someone promoting their own private museum and book for the same reason. This doesn't mean they're automatically wrong, but it should at least alert you to the possibility that they're not the most up-to-date, scientifically accurate, objective, or just generally reliable source of information, and that maybe you should look elsewhere for corroboration.

Why not read this paragraph to the San Diego Natural History Museum?


I already provided my source of information: the top-tier scientific journal Nature. I can't check everything myself, but I do try to consider the source.

So your arguments will best fulfill a need with the San Diego museum and others who put the hoaxter's exibit up on display.


Off the hook for what? For showing a hoax? They're not. For showing illegally acquired fossils? That's what the Nature story was about, and if it turns out to be true, yes, there will be consequences. That's why most museums have declined to show the exhibit until the charges have been sorted out.

San Diego is putting the hoaxter's display on exibit, or do you not see this as a problem?

Jukia
May 24th, 2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh


San Diego is putting the hoaxter's display on exibit, or do you not see this as a problem?

I got the impression that aharvey was concerned about this. Didn't sound to me like he was too happy about any museum knowingly putting out misinformation.

But what about the Coral Ridge/CSI press release? Is that OK because it is from a creationist organization despite the sloppy (at best) science?

aharvey
May 24th, 2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Well, if you want to claim the NEWS is only the NEWS if it comes from Nature, you might have a point.

This makes no sense. Not only does it not have anything to do with my response to your original "deceptive and uninformed" complaint, but it doesn't make any sense in any context. Surely you consider some sources of information more reliable than others, don't you? Do you think the stories in the National Enquirer and those other supermarket tabloids are every bit as trustworthy as the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal? It's not an issue of whether the Times is always right (it's not) or the Enquirer is always wrong (it's not). But if they disagree with each other on something, wouldn't you be more inclined to favor the NYTimes over the Enquirer?

Inquiring minds want to know!


Originally posted by Nineveh


Why not read this paragraph to the San Diego Natural History Museum?

If you would read the Nature article, you would rest assured that they have heard all about this by now!


Originally posted by Nineveh


So your arguments will best fulfill a need with the San Diego museum and others who put the hoaxter's exibit up on display.



San Diego is putting the hoaxter's display on exibit, or do you not see this as a problem?

First of all, although I'm no fan of the Czerkases, as far as I know they were victims, not intentional perpetrators, of the hoax (but if they in fact knowingly perpetrated the fraud after they had been made aware of it, then they should be nailed to the wall for it!), so you shouldn't really be calling them 'hoaxters.' Nonetheless, yes, I do think museums should be careful when considering exhibits the Czerkases market, because they've been shown to be careless and uncritical when it matters most, and most museums have. I think SDNHM will come to regret taking this exhibit on, and deservedly so, especially if it turns out that some of the fossils in the exhibit were illegally acquired. What else do you want me to say?

Free-Agent Smith
May 24th, 2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Which is it? Option 3: Nineveh is as wrong as ever and you both are misinformed. The hoaxed fossil is not in the United States, it's not part of the Feather Dinosaurs exhibit, and never was. Ninevah's original link was from a Utah county tourist bureau; the link you provided, in case you weren't aware of this, is from the private museum of the Czerkases, and the book being touted is their own book. The Nature article to which I referred is primarily about the Feathered Dinosaurs exhibit (which, again, does not and never did include Archaeoraptor). This is a private, traveling exhibit, again put together and "rented out" by the Czerkases; although it is currently showing at the San Diego Museum of Natural History, but it has run into trouble because it appears to contain at least a dozen illegally acquired fossils, which is an extremely serioius charge.

You guys need to consider your sources a little more carefully. Most people would consider Nature to be a more reliable source of scientific information than either a local tourist board web site or a self-promoting artist-fossil hunter who's repeatedly run into major problems in his fossil endeavors.


Whether or not the exhibit is private, it's put on public display and put out as fact anf fed to the public that dinosaurs flew.

So a pterosaur isn't classified as a dinosaur? If this flying reptile isn't a dinosaur, I have been mislead by the The Field Museum, the Smithsonian Institute of Natural History and public education. Yes I have been to those museums, among others, and they seem to disagree with you. Some day I will get to go to the San Diego Museum and see for myself if they parade lies on display also.


And there is a whole suite of fossil evidence providing a fairly beautiful series of dinosaur-bird intermediates. You mean there is a whole set of missing links?

we can modernize your question a bit, If you choose to change my questions don't bother replying.

Jukia
May 24th, 2004, 02:45 PM
But again, Coral Ridge and CSI, the original topic of this thread, can put forth their information without anyone calling them to task on it?

aharvey
May 24th, 2004, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Agent Smith

Whether or not the exhibit is private, it's put on public display and put out as fact anf fed to the public that dinosaurs flew.

...and your point is...? The hoaxed fossil is not in this exhibit; if the fossils on display support the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs, then yes, that may in fact be what's being "fed to the public." But it won't be based on the hoaxed fossil.


Originally posted by Agent Smith

So a pterosaur isn't classified as a dinosaur? If this flying reptile isn't a dinosaur, I have been mislead by the The Field Museum, the Smithsonian Institute of Natural History and public education. Yes I have been to those museums, among others, and they seem to disagree with you. Some day I will get to go to the San Diego Museum and see for myself if they parade lies on display also.

Nope, a pterosaur isn't classified as a dinosaur. I'm not sure it ever was, but if so, that's been corrected for a long, long time. I can't vouch for your public education, but I know most of the curators at the Field Museum and the Smithsonian and am very confident that they would not knowingly allow you to leave their museums with the impression that pterosaurs were dinosaurs. People stubbornly cling to their preconceptions, though. Here at the Georgia Southern Museum we have a world-class specimen of a mosasaur, which is also not a dinosaur, and pretty much every visitor, even repeat visitors, thinks it's a dinosaur, despite big signs to the contrary. Did you click the Field Museum link I provided? This one (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archosy.html) will give you an idea of the relationships of these two groups.


Originally posted by Agent Smith

You mean there is a whole set of missing links?

See my earlier post on why 'missing links' are red herrings. But in any case, there is considerable evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.


Originally posted by Agent Smith

If you choose to change my questions don't bother replying.

Why not? It's not like I didn't tell you I was going to do it. It's not like I didn't tell you why I did it. The answer to your original question is the same as the answer to my modified versions. Exactly the same. I thought it would make more sense to you coming from you than from me.

Nineveh
May 24th, 2004, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

This makes no sense. Not only does it not have anything to do with my response to your original "deceptive and uninformed" complaint, but it doesn't make any sense in any context. Surely you consider some sources of information more reliable than others, don't you? Do you think the stories in the National Enquirer and those other supermarket tabloids are every bit as trustworthy as the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal? It's not an issue of whether the Times is always right (it's not) or the Enquirer is always wrong (it's not). But if they disagree with each other on something, wouldn't you be more inclined to favor the NYTimes over the Enquirer?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Come down off your high horse for a sec. You wanted to blast me for not reading the NEWS out of Nature. Were I read about the hoax doesn't change the facts about it. But go ahead and try to salvage this pointless argument anyway...


If you would read the Nature article, you would rest assured that they have heard all about this by now!

First of all, although I'm no fan of the Czerkases, as far as I know they were victims, not intentional perpetrators, of the hoax (but if they in fact knowingly perpetrated the fraud after they had been made aware of it, then they should be nailed to the wall for it!), so you shouldn't really be calling them 'hoaxters.' Nonetheless, yes, I do think museums should be careful when considering exhibits the Czerkases market, because they've been shown to be careless and uncritical when it matters most, and most museums have. I think SDNHM will come to regret taking this exhibit on, and deservedly so, especially if it turns out that some of the fossils in the exhibit were illegally acquired. What else do you want me to say?

So really, you don't know what the intent of the hoaxters who are selling a $35 book (with a pic of an "archeoraptor" on the cover ) might have been, you are just guessing. Looks to me like they found some "timely" "evidence" to support their "theory" of the "origin of flight". But yes, I have to agree San Diego (and any other museum who takes the hoaxters exibit to heart) will be red faced just like National Geographic.

I don't know what you want to say. You wanted to accuse me of ignorance for not getting my NEWS out of Nature. You started this dialog.

Nineveh
May 24th, 2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Jukia

But again, Coral Ridge and CSI, the original topic of this thread, can put forth their information without anyone calling them to task on it?

Jukia, you had the man on the phone. Why don't you use that handy 1-800 again and ask him your questions? You might even talk over some of the arguments you've leveled against the guy as well. I doubt anything he would say to you would stop your whining about any of it, but you could at least get the answers straight from the horses mouth.

Stratnerd
May 25th, 2004, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by Agent Smith

[quote] I don't always equate adaptation with evolution. but it is why some organisms evolve [?]


I have seen websites and exhibits that do say they are. Chicago's Museum of Natural History/Field Museum has suggested just the opposite of what you have.

pterosaurs are archosaurs - the group that contains dinosaurs, birds, crocs, but pterosaurs are usually not nested within dinosaurs (which means they are not considered dinosaurs)

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/taxaform.html

Usually pterosaurs are presented with dinosaurs but not as dinosaurs. Probably because they are big mesozoic creatures.

Stratnerd
May 25th, 2004, 05:41 AM
I doubt anything he would say to you would stop your whining about any of it, of course, 90% of these post have been about creationists whining about an "evolution hoax". one that was put forth by non-scientists and, thankfully, real scientist have uncovered and moved on.

so what makes Juke's posts whining and your's something else?

Jukia
May 25th, 2004, 05:42 AM
Nineveh:
Whining? I really didn't think I was whining, I was pointing out the poor science they did and the jump from that work to the claims they made.

I really have no more questions for DeRosa. Although if I can grab some time I will call and ask about the 1% fossilized issue. If I do I will report back but I am a bit amazed that no creationist has managed to step up and provide any information supporting Coral Ridges and CSI's claims about the mammoth.

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

of course, 90% of these post have been about creationists whining about an "evolution hoax". one that was put forth by non-scientists and, thankfully, real scientist have uncovered and moved on.

so what makes Juke's posts whining and your's something else?

Except the hoaxters exibit is on display. It seems evos would be the ones whining, instead of shooting the messenger.

Stratnerd
May 25th, 2004, 05:57 AM
[qutoe] Except the hoaxters exibit is on display. It seems evos would be the ones whining, instead of shooting the messenger. [/quote]

1. A'raptor was uncovered by evolutionary biologists so we did our job

2. You haven't provided any evidence that A'raptor is still on display

3. When you try to show that it is - you show that "feathered dinosaurs" are on display. A'raptor certainly is not the only evidence that dinosaurs have feathers.

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by Jukia
Whining? I really didn't think I was whining, I was pointing out the poor science they did and the jump from that work to the claims they made.

No, you were whining about how you don't like how they dated the bone(s). Not once (when OEJ responded), but twice, (when I responded).


I really have no more questions for DeRosa.

No, you'd just rather whine here in this thread than get your answers straight from the man himself.


Although if I can grab some time I will call and ask about the 1% fossilized issue. If I do I will report back but I am a bit amazed that no creationist has managed to step up and provide any information supporting Coral Ridges and CSI's claims about the mammoth.

If you put half the effort dialing the phone as you did in this post, your questions would have been answered. (and you would have had new whine fodder :) )

Jukia
May 25th, 2004, 06:00 AM
And again, Coral Ridge puts out a press release about 4000 year old mammoths based on bad science and that is OK? Not whinin, just trying to understand.

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 06:03 AM
Me: Except the hoaxters exibit is on display. It seems evos would be the ones whining, instead of shooting the messenger.

Stratnerd
1. A'raptor was uncovered by evolutionary biologists so we did our job

2. You haven't provided any evidence that A'raptor is still on display

3. When you try to show that it is - you show that "feathered dinosaurs" are on display. A'raptor certainly is not the only evidence that dinosaurs have feathers.

Me: Hey, it's the "origin of flight" for evo that's on display, the "theory" expounded upon by hoaxters who wrote the book (with the "A'raptor" on the cover, selling for $35) and made the exhibit. If ya'll need that kind of "science" to prove your theory, pardon if I'm not shocked.

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by Jukia

And again, Coral Ridge puts out a press release about 4000 year old mammoths based on bad science and that is OK? Not whinin, just trying to understand.

Aww still whining about how you don't like the methods instead of dialing the phone?

Jukia
May 25th, 2004, 06:07 AM
OK, OK, I'll call and will report back, anything in particular you want me to ask about?

Stratnerd
May 25th, 2004, 06:13 AM
Me: Hey, it's the "origin of flight" for evo that's on display, the "theory" expounded upon by hoaxters who wrote the book (with the "A'raptor" on the cover, selling for $35) and made the exhibit. If ya'll need that kind of "science" to prove your theory, pardon if I'm not shocked.

someone else had already shown that Nature, the top science journal, ran the piece on the fossil being a hoax.

theories, regardless of how well-validated they are, are still called theories. Facts are observations. Again, and I know I have said these well over a dozen times, SCIENCE DOES NOT SET OUT TO PROVE THINGS POSITIVE BUT WE TRY TO PROVE THEM FALSE. This is why we do experiments and make observations.

AGAIN, Archaeoraptor is not necessary as evidence that dinosaurs and birds are closely related. I already gave numerous examples of specimens that play this role.

If certain people still want to display A'raptor, if they are, then they are doing it out of spite. Scientists know they are wrong. If the general public get duped then shame on them for not being critical and keeping up with science but I look at it as any other fraud.

Have you called the authors of the book to whine to them?

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by Jukia

OK, OK, I'll call and will report back, anything in particular you want me to ask about?

Your problems with him and his bones.

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

someone else had already shown that Nature, the top science journal, ran the piece on the fossil being a hoax.

We all know it's a hoax, remember National Geographic? For crying out loud.


theories, regardless of how well-validated they are, are still called theories. Facts are observations. Again, and I know I have said these well over a dozen times, SCIENCE DOES NOT SET OUT TO PROVE THINGS POSITIVE BUT WE TRY TO PROVE THEM FALSE. This is why we do experiments and make observations.

So the kids, whom this exhibit is designed for (by hoaxters) are supposed to know "The Origin of Flight" is a theory? Not even the San Deigo museum has the word on their exhibit page.


AGAIN, Archaeoraptor is not necessary as evidence that dinosaurs and birds are closely related. I already gave numerous examples of specimens that play this role.

Funny, National Geographic hailed it as "the missing link" for the dinos to birds theory.


If certain people still want to display A'raptor, if they are, then they are doing it out of spite. Scientists know they are wrong. If the general public get duped then shame on them for not being critical and keeping up with science but I look at it as any other fraud.

The San Diego Natural History Museum is putting on this display "out of spite"? For who? Evos?

Funny! :ha: One one hand no credit to those who can't seem to grasp evo theory, on the other they are supposed to grasp evo theory.


Have you called the authors of the book to whine to them?

Heck no. This is evo at it's finest. I think it's funny watching you make excuses (including blaming the public) about hoaxter's exhibits in San Deigo.

Stratnerd
May 25th, 2004, 06:32 AM
from http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs/birdbook.html

Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight

There are six papers within the volume:

A New Toothed Bird from China
(Archaeovolans repatriates - formerly Archaeoraptor)
Stephen A. Czerkas and Xing Xu

An Arboreal Maniraptoran from Northeast China
(Scansoriopteryx heilmanni)
Stephen A. Czerkas and Chongxi Yuan

Flying Dromaeosaurs
(Cryptovolans pauli)
Stephen A. Czerkas, Dianshuang Zhang, Jinglu li, and Yinxian Li

A Preliminary Report on an Omnivorous Volant Bird from Northeast China
(Omnivoropteryx sinousaorum)
Stephen A. Czerkas and Qiang Ji

so even Czerkas, the guy that was originally duped is no longer using A'raptor and sticking to the top part of the fossil and calling it a bird. The cover isn't supposed to be A'raptor but a generic feathered dinosaur that we can presuppose existed.

So, again, there's no evidence of A'raptor being used.

Stratnerd
May 25th, 2004, 06:37 AM
So the kids, whom this exhibit is designed for (by hoaxters) are supposed to know "The Origin of Flight" is a theory? Not even the San Deigo museum has the word on their exhibit page. ALL scientific explanations are theories. Kids should know this. YOU should know this, but you didn't so now you do and you don't have any excuse in the future.


Funny, National Geographic hailed it as "the missing link" for the dinos to birds theory. they're not a peer-reviewed journal either and are out to sell as much as possible. something else I had already pointed out.


The San Diego Natural History Museum is putting on this display "out of spite"? For who? Evos? I failed to see where A'raptor was on display.

I went to their website and there is no mention of A'raptor. Do you have any evidence they're using it?

Jukia
May 25th, 2004, 06:43 AM
Nineveh: Why dont you call the San Diego Museum and report back to us?

Stratnerd
May 25th, 2004, 06:45 AM
J-

There's no need to - A'raptor isn't there. But maybe she should just to convince herself!

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

ALL scientific explanations are theories. Kids should know this. YOU should know this, but you didn't so now you do and you don't have any excuse in the future.

they're not a peer-reviewed journal either and are out to sell as much as possible. something else I had already pointed out.

I failed to see where A'raptor was on display.

I went to their website and there is no mention of A'raptor. Do you have any evidence they're using it?

Do you have evidence the hoaxters left their prize "missing link" at home?

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

J-

There's no need to - A'raptor isn't there. But maybe she should just to convince herself!

So it doesn't matter that these folks, who are known hoaxters are having their exhibit on display?

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 07:21 AM
...wating for email reply about the Archaeoraptor being part of San Diego exhibit.

Stratnerd
May 25th, 2004, 07:31 AM
Do you have evidence the hoaxters left their prize "missing link" at home? do you have evidence that alians haven't appeared in your shorts? What kind of question is that? YOU made the accusation and YOU should back it up!


So it doesn't matter that these folks, who are known hoaxters are having their exhibit on display? if you paid attention to the posts that explain what actually happened you wouldn't have made that statement. So let me explain, AGAIN: Someone in China made the fossil composite and sold it to a dealer who brought it back to the US. It was then purchased in the US by a paleontologist (Czerkas) who then brought it to the attention of National Geographic. Czerkas wasn't a hoaxster but we was duped and not careful. I looked at some chatter and he isn't that well respected amongst his peers (probably for that very reason).

But Czerkas is not presenting A'raptor and as far as I know noone is. AGAIN, I never defended the hoax and I wish you would stop saying that I was.

aharvey
May 25th, 2004, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Do you have evidence the hoaxters left their prize "missing link" at home?

Um, Nineveh, I already quoted the Nature report that said the hoaxed fossil was sent back to China in 2000. Why are you being so testy about all this?

The hoax was pulled on a non-professional fossil hunter. The hoaxed fossil was rejected by the two top-tiered scientific journals, but accepted by a surely well-known, but nonetheless non-peer-reviewed popular magazine. Evolutionary biologists caught that it was a hoaxed fossil, the story was retracted, the fossils sent back to China. No museum is basing any statements about the origin of flight on the hoaxed specimen. Not a one.

The victims of the hoax are still interested in fossils (are they allowed this?), and particularly in fossils that illuminate the bird-dinosaur connection, so they have written a book on the subject (are they allowed this?), and put together a traveling exhibit (are they allowed this?) that includes other fossils that are as far as I know not hoaxes (and you can bet they have been looked over carefully with this in mind!). It does not sound like they are basing statements about the origin of flight on the hoaxed specimen in their book. If they are, and are trying to concealing that fact, then you are right in calling them hoaxters. if not, then you have no basis for calling them hoaxters, and implying that all of science is therefore in on the scam. Regardless, the scientific community is justifyably wary of their claims and their evidence.

I was never attacking you personally. I was trying to point out that your indignation was based on a false understanding of the situation. It perplexes me that you are just as indignant at the same people for the same reasons, regardless of what really happened.

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

do you have evidence that alians haven't appeared in your shorts? What kind of question is that? YOU made the accusation and YOU should back it up!

Ok, deny the hoaxters aren't having their "origin of flight" on exhibit at San Diego. Unless you want to reach and and make the claim the Web Master of San Diego Natural History Museum is in need of being fired for not doing his/her job.

I'm in Indiana, wanna float me some cash for a plane ticket so I can go to San Diego? I seriously doubt it. And even if I went, took pics of the hoax fossils (should they be on display or whole cloth drawings and models), and posted them, you would still argue with me. Why? Because shooting the messenger makes everything ok. (that, and you would owe me $50)


if you paid attention to the posts that explain what actually happened you wouldn't have made that statement. So let me explain, AGAIN: Someone in China made the fossil composite and sold it to a dealer who brought it back to the US. It was then purchased in the US by a paleontologist (Czerkas) who then brought it to the attention of National Geographic. Czerkas wasn't a hoaxster but we was duped and not careful. I looked at some chatter and he isn't that well respected amongst his peers (probably for that very reason).

But Czerkas is not presenting A'raptor and as far as I know noone is. AGAIN, I never defended the hoax and I wish you would stop saying that I was.


We all know it's a hoax. REMEMBER National Geographic? Why are you still beating that dead horse? The matter is the exhibit these hoaxers have on display in San Diego.

You seem to be the one not paying attention:

The Czerkas are the people who made the exhibit now on display in San Diego. Their book Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight still has a "missing link" gracing it's cover. Unless of course all this can be reasonably blamed on a Web Master for not doing their job.

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by aharvey
I was never attacking you personally. I was trying to point out that your indignation was based on a false understanding of the situation. It perplexes me that you are just as indignant at the same people for the same reasons, regardless of what really happened.

A false understanding San Diego is putting on the exhibit of the "origin of flight" by the Czerkas?

Stratnerd
May 25th, 2004, 07:51 AM
Ok, deny the hoaxters aren't having their "origin of flight" on exhibit at San Diego.

THEY ARE NOT THE HOAXSTERS AND A'RAPTOR IS NOT ON DISPLAY. THE BOOK COVER HAS A GENERIC DINO-BIRD

Why is this stuff going over your head?

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

THEY ARE NOT THE HOAXSTERS AND A'RAPTOR IS NOT ON DISPLAY.


But Czerkas is not presenting A'raptor and as far as I know noone is.

There are no pics, no models and no fossils being presented in the "origin of flight" exhibit?

Please explain how you know this.

(I've emailed, and I'm waiting to find out if the Archaeoraptor has been dropped from the San Diego exhibit)

aharvey
May 25th, 2004, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

There are no pics, no models and no fossils being presented in the "origin of flight" exhibit?

Please explain how you know this.

There are no pics, no models and no fossils of Archaeoraptor in the origin of flight exhibit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Archaeoraptor was the single hoaxed fossil!!!!!!!!!!!! It was sent back to China in 2000!!!!!!!!! If the Czerkases were stupid enough to include in their exhibit anything that would even imply that the hoaxed fossil Archaeoraptor told us anything useful about the origin of flight, and if the San Diego Museum of Natural History was stupid enough to take on a seven-month contract for an exhibit that made such a stupid mistake, then I will do everything I can to make sure the scientific community knows about this, and that the SDNMH deals with this problem as swiftly as possible.

But I'm willing to bet that this exhibit presents its case using other, legitimate fossils. If these other fossils are not hoaxes, are they allowed?

Oh yeah...


Originally posted by Nineveh

(I've emailed, and I'm waiting to find out if the Archaeoraptor has been dropped from the San Diego exhibit)

I'm glad you've done this. Maybe you'll get it when they tell you that the hoaxed fossil Archaeoraptor was never part of this exhibit!!!!!!

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by aharvey

There are no pics, no models and no fossils of Archaeoraptor in the origin of flight exhibit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


On what are you basing this claim? I'm waiting for email conformation if they are or are not being presented in the exhibit.

wow... talk about being "testy"....


Archaeoraptor was the single hoaxed fossil!!!!!!!!!!!! It was sent back to China in 2000!!!!!!!!! If the Czerkases were stupid enough to include in their exhibit anything that would even imply that the hoaxed fossil Archaeoraptor told us anything useful about the origin of flight, and if the San Diego Museum of Natural History was stupid enough to take on a seven-month contract for an exhibit that made such a stupid mistake, then I will do everything I can to make sure the scientific community knows about this, and that the SDNMH deals with this problem as swiftly as possible.

But I'm willing to bet that this exhibit presents its case using other, legitimate fossils. If these other fossils are not hoaxes, are they allowed?

Ok, well until we know for sure if it's being included, it seems like specualtion on your part. I read where the exhibit is going to Canada next.

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 08:32 AM
C'mon, let me in, how do you two know all this stuff? Call? Email? Visit? What?

aharvey
May 25th, 2004, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

On what are you basing this claim? I'm waiting for email conformation if they are or are not being presented in the exhibit.

wow... talk about being "testy"....

Yes, I admit to getting testy. You seem to be impervious to the facts. If the dang hoaxed material was sent back to China 4 years ago, then how could it be on display here? And if everyone knows it was a huge, embarrassing hoax, then why on earth do you think the victims of the hoax would try to pass it off on the public, especially after they themselves have published papers on the separated, post-hoax material? And why would a respected scientific institution knowingly guarantee destroying its credibility by displaying or even discussing a hoax as if it were the real thing? I worked for years at both the California Academy of Sciences and the American Museum of Natural History, and can tell you from personal experience that museums may like the occasional controversial exhibit, but they live in fear of scandalized exhibits (e.g., frauds or thefts).


Originally posted by Nineveh

Ok, well until we know for sure if it's being included, it seems like specualtion on your part. I read where the exhibit is going to Canada next.

Yes, but please be assured it's highly informed speculation on my part. And remember what I said about the fearfulness of museums towards the whiff of scandal? Well, the Royal Ontario Museum, which had signed on to display the exhibit, is reconsidering until it's determined whether the fossils in the exhibit were legally acquired.

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by aharvey
If the dang hoaxed material was sent back to China 4 years ago, then how could it be on display here?


The exhibit includes 34 original fossils, 15 life-size sculptural restorations of the fossils, historical models, and over two dozen large photomurals and graphics


The fossils are brought to life in a collection of stunning life-size sculptural restorations by the well-known dinosaur sculptor Stephen Czerkas. In addition to the beautiful and realistic sculptures, viewers are aided by a series of huge photo blow-ups that reveal aspects of the fossils, which are not readily visible to the naked eye, including microscopic details, X-rays and ultraviolet illumination.

It seems it could be presented.


Yes, but please be assured it's highly informed speculation on my part.

So you really dunno, then. I guess I will have to wait on the email replies, unless Strat has some compelling evidence.

oh... another blast to the San Diego Web Master:

The exhibition will travel to the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Canada and be there for seven months starting in the Spring of 2005.

*all quotes from San Diego Museum of Natural History.

Stratnerd
May 25th, 2004, 08:58 AM
N-

I can't show there's evidence of something not being presented. I can't show evidence that bigfoot, loch ness monster, yeti, alians, ghosts, etc etc are being presented.

However, as it has been presented to you over and over and over and over and over, there's no evidence the A'raptor is on display. YOU made the acccusation and YOU should back it up. And we've said, over and over and over and over and over, that there are other fossils that support the dino-bird link so your continuous allusions to these are pointless. So either find some texts, pictures, etc from the webpages that show that the fossils, pics, etc are indeed A'raptor or please admit that you goofed and let's please move on.

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

N-

I can't show there's evidence of something not being presented.

So basically you don't know, you are just making the claim it isn't being presented.


However, as it has been presented to you over and over and over and over and over, there's no evidence the A'raptor is on display.

The people who made the exhibit and wrote the book on the Origin of Flight are the same folks who snookered National Geographic. There is no evidence it isn't being displayed other than the claims of you and aharvey. How about some evidence? (which I am waiting for now in my email)


YOU made the acccusation and YOU should back it up.

Um, no, you said they aren't there, I say you don't know.


And we've said, over and over and over and over and over, that there are other fossils that support the dino-bird link so your continuous allusions to these are pointless. So either find some texts, pictures, etc from the webpages that show that the fossils, pics, etc are indeed A'raptor or please admit that you goofed and let's please move on.

Interesting you would say that, I was just reading a link off SDNHM's site:


The bird-dinosaur link was first proposed more than a century ago by Thomas Henry Huxley, a contemporary of Charles Darwin. The idea got a considerable boost in the 1970s when a Yale University scientist named John Ostrom documented close similarities between dinosaurs and the skeleton of a well-defined early birdlike creature.

Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution's Natural History Museum, is one of the most highly vocal critics of the theory that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs. He and others of a like mind say the theropod origin of birds has been oversold on the basis of "wishful thinking," and that fossil evidence suggesting that some dinosaurs had feathers is too sketchy to bear out the claims. Any true feathers that have been documented could have come from birds that nested amid theropods, some suggest.

In an open letter he sent in 1999 to National Geographic's Committee for Research and Exploration, which has funded some of the recent dinosaur fossil discoveries, Olson called the theory of feathered dinosaurs the "paleontological equivalent of cold fusion."

He issued the highly critical letter after National Geographic magazine published a story in November 1999 reporting on several feathered dinosaur specimens that scientists claimed were "a missing link" between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could fly. One of the specimens from China was later found to be a composite, which prompted an internal investigation of the incident.

Among his comments, Olson said that "none of the structures illustrated in [the] article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers." cite (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/04/0425_featherdino.html)

So your "peer review" wound up as a letter to the editor. I wonder if San Diego has any lil placards presenting the "birds to dinos" as less an the "origin of flight". What with all the "evidence" (minus the missing link (?) ), it seems like they wouldn't make such bold pronouncements as "The goal of this exhibition is to present new fossil evidence and stimulate both the scientific and the popular understanding of what dinosaurs were like and how they are related to birds," You can see the quote from SDNHM's site.

aharvey
May 25th, 2004, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

It seems it could be presented.

Nope. Nothing in the text you quoted gives the faintest hint that they will be presenting anything to do with the hoaxed fossil, and it would be professional suicide for both museum and Czerkases to do so.


Originally posted by Nineveh

So you really dunno, then. I guess I will have to wait on the email replies, unless Strat has some compelling evidence.

Nope, I only have my own personal opinions, supplemented by reporting from the top-tier scientific journal Nature, and the years of firsthand professional experience I gained from working in museums, knowing curators from museums around the world, and helping make decisions about what to exhibit and how. Now if I was a Creationist, and told you that Archaeoraptor could conceivably be part of this exhibit (but had no support or experience to back it up), how skeptical would you be of that claim?


Originally posted by Nineveh

oh... another blast to the San Diego Web Master:
quote:
The exhibition will travel to the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Canada and be there for seven months starting in the Spring of 2005.

Yep, that was the original plan, but as I told you ROM may not show it after all. What's your point?

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by aharvey
Nope, I only have my own personal opinions, supplemented by reporting from the top-tier scientific journal Nature, and the years of firsthand professional experience I gained from working in museums, knowing curators from museums around the world, and helping make decisions about what to exhibit and how.

Thanks, but I'll wait for conformation from the museum, rather than take your "educated guess" at it.

aharvey
May 25th, 2004, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Thanks, but I'll wait for conformation from the museum, rather than take your "educated guess" at it.

And then what will you do? It seems to be very important to you that this exhibit tries to pass off the hoaxed fossil as real; otherwise I can't imagine why you would be so incredibly resistant to the idea that it probably doesn't. If the SDNMH does answer back and tell you that the exhibit makes no use of the hoaxed fossil, will you even believe them? And if you do believe them, will it affect your mindset about anything? Or will you still insist that the scientific community makes a habit of perpetrating frauds, including Archaeoraptor, on an unsuspecting public? Hopefully not, but I am very curious how you go about evaluating "evidence."

In any case, once the SDNMH sets your mind at ease, I look forward to getting back to the 3,000 - 4,000 year old Coral Ridge mammoth!

aharvey
May 25th, 2004, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by aharvey

And then what will you do? It seems to be very important to you that this exhibit tries to pass off the hoaxed fossil as real; otherwise I can't imagine why you would be so incredibly resistant to the idea that it probably doesn't. If the SDNMH does answer back and tell you that the exhibit makes no use of the hoaxed fossil, will you even believe them? And if you do believe them, will it affect your mindset about anything? Or will you still insist that the scientific community makes a habit of perpetrating frauds, including Archaeoraptor, on an unsuspecting public? Hopefully not, but I am very curious how you go about evaluating "evidence."

In any case, once the SDNMH sets your mind at ease, I look forward to getting back to the 3,000 - 4,000 year old Coral Ridge mammoth (sorry about this extended sidetrip, Jukia)!

aharvey
May 25th, 2004, 09:38 AM
Oops! Don't know how that glitch happened! I didn't mean to post a blank reply to my own post!

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 09:39 AM
Yeah!! One email reply so far:

From: S. Czerkas emailed at: <Featheredinos@Dinosaur-Museum.org>


No, the Archaeoraptor is in China, and not on view in San Diego. A plastic replica is on view at The Dinosaur Museum.

Now, I await the email from San Diego letting me know if any "plastic replicas" of this unicorn are included in the exhibit.

Looks like it can be displayed, huh, aharvey?

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by aharvey

And then what will you do? It seems to be very important to you that this exhibit tries to pass off the hoaxed fossil as real; otherwise I can't imagine why you would be so incredibly resistant to the idea that it probably doesn't. If the SDNMH does answer back and tell you that the exhibit makes no use of the hoaxed fossil, will you even believe them? And if you do believe them, will it affect your mindset about anything? Or will you still insist that the scientific community makes a habit of perpetrating frauds, including Archaeoraptor, on an unsuspecting public? Hopefully not, but I am very curious how you go about evaluating "evidence."

In any case, once the SDNMH sets your mind at ease, I look forward to getting back to the 3,000 - 4,000 year old Coral Ridge mammoth!

What will I do? Laugh that evo needs the Czerkas to have displays on the "Origins of Flight" cuz' that's the best they have.

And guess what? That mammoth is really a mammoth, and it's not being promoted as proof of a theory like "elephants to long haired hippies".

Anyway... I need to go shopping :) I'll check for the SDNHM's reply when I get back.

aharvey
May 25th, 2004, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Yeah!! One email reply so far:

From: S. Czerkas emailed at: <Featheredinos@Dinosaur-Museum.org>



Now, I await the email from San Diego letting me know if any "plastic replicas" of this unicorn are included in the exhibit.

Looks like it can be displayed, huh, aharvey?

Did you ask whether it is displayed as a hoax or as the real thing? Do you see why this would be an important thing to know? I'm off to lunch with my wife. Upon my return I'll give a call to Tom Demere, curator of Paleontology at SDNMH, and ask him the right questions.

aharvey
May 25th, 2004, 10:50 AM
Minor change of plans. Remembering that OEJ accused Jukia of lying about calling Tom DeRosa, I sent an email to Tom Demere instead. That way I'll have better documentation of his response than a mere phone call could provide.

aharvey
May 25th, 2004, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh
And guess what? That mammoth is really a mammoth, and it's not being promoted as proof of a theory like "elephants to long haired hippies".


Hmm, how do you know it's a mammoth? And what do you mean it's not being used to promote a theory? It's being promoted as evidence that the world is only a few thousand years old. Why do you think it's on their main page?

aharvey
May 25th, 2004, 11:43 AM
Sorry, Jukia, I’m afraid your mammoth aging query got waylaid.

I don’t think it’s too difficult to determine the YEC technique for dating fossils. For the YECs reading this, I would be interested in any specific corrections or additions to the following description.

First, all fossils on earth are a priori required to be between 0 – 6000* years old (*age of Earth).

Second, since the global geologic record is considered to be virtually entirely the result of a single global event (i.e., the Global Flood), most fossils should be 4000* years old, and virtually all fossils should be no older than 4000 years (*date of Global Flood). (Is the diagram linked here basically sound? (http://www.bio.georgiasouthern.edu/bio-home/harvey/yecgeolcol.jpg) The left side comes directly from a creationist exposition (http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp) ; the right side is my add-on)

Third, to assess the minimum age, assume, at least regarding species for which there is no documentation of human observation, that fossils must have been laid down before humans reliably documented such things. As bob b has observed, “dates prior to around 1200BC or so have been ‘established’ on dubious grounds.” Therefore, it should be safe to set the upper age limit of a fossil (of a taxon that no human has recorded seeing) to around 3000 years. Thus, the estimate of “3000-4000 years” is a safe, conservative estimate, probably unnecessarily broad, because according to step 2, virtually all fossils should be the same age.

Maybe there’s some bickering about the asterisked dates, but this won’t affect the basic procedure. How would YECs modify the above description?

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Did you ask whether it is displayed as a hoax or as the real thing? Do you see why this would be an important thing to know? I'm off to lunch with my wife. Upon my return I'll give a call to Tom Demere, curator of Paleontology at SDNMH, and ask him the right questions.

No, I asked Czerkas if the Archaeoraptor was on display at San Diego. They implied the fossil isn't, ( but the jury is still out on models and pics). They offered it was on display at thiers. We all know it's a hoax! (For crying out loud) But feel free to email they guy yourself.

Well, good, I'm glad you know someone at SDNHM, cuz they ain't sent an email yet.


Hmm, how do you know it's a mammoth? And what do you mean it's not being used to promote a theory? It's being promoted as evidence that the world is only a few thousand years old. Why do you think it's on their main page?

Unlike San Diego, CSI has a 1-800 # you can use to ask your questions, much like Jukia has (and is?).

aharvey
May 25th, 2004, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

No, I asked Czerkas if the Archaeoraptor was on display at San Diego. They implied the fossil isn't, ( but the jury is still out on models and pics). They offered it was on display at thiers. We all know it's a hoax! (For crying out loud) But feel free to email they guy yourself.

So if "we all know it's a hoax," and the exhibit refers to it as a hoax, would you still find this offensive?


Originally posted by Nineveh

Unlike San Diego, CSI has a 1-800 # you can use to ask your questions, much like Jukia has (and is?).

Yeah, but you're the one who's repeated posted in this thread that "the mammoth is really a mammoth." So I'm asking you how you know that. I don't think CSI can answer that one for me.

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

So if "we all know it's a hoax," and the exhibit refers to it as a hoax, would you still find this offensive?

I find it funny these "scientists" (that's the description on San Diego's website) have kept some "evidence" for themselves. The Archaeoraptor is as real as some of these (missing link) ape-man models on display at museums. Why not toss in a unicorn model too, as long as they display it as a hoax.


Yeah, but you're the one who's repeated posted in this thread that "the mammoth is really a mammoth." So I'm asking you how you know that. I don't think CSI can answer that one for me.

Well let's compare evidence. One "scientist" says he has an Archaeoraptor fossil, and one says he has a mammoth bone :think: hmmmmmm that's a toughie. Look, I know you and Jukia have a prob with the method of dating a bone. I have a problem with evo's MO using fakes as "evidence" proving theory. Archaeoraptor is only one, remember, it's not like this hasn't happened before (refer to Agent Smith's post)

BTW how's that call coming?

Jukia
May 25th, 2004, 12:50 PM
My call? sorry a bit busy trying to make a living today. Too many college tuition loans for chilluns to pay back.

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Jukia

My call? sorry a bit busy trying to make a living today. Too many college tuition loans for chilluns to pay back.

That's ok, I can wait :)

But, aharvey is going to call San Diego for us :)

aharvey
May 25th, 2004, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

That's ok, I can wait :)

But, aharvey is going to call San Diego for us :)

Nineveh,

You really are selective in what you choose to read, aren't you? That does explain quite a bit of your recent posts. How else could one possibly explain why in your most recent posts, you still claim that evolutionists use hoaxes to "prove" the theory of evolution?

See my post #220. No, I mean read my post #220.

Like Jukia, too, I have to get back to work. To some extent this is work-related, being an evolutionary biologist and a biology professor and all. In addition (Nineveh, you'll get a laugh out of this!), I am helping to curate a new museum exhibit on the theory of evolution. Given my location in the Bible Belt, I thought it would be prudent to interact with some creationists to see how they think about these issues.

But it's clear that nothing will ever shake your steadfast belief that any evidence for evolutionary theory must be (I'm guessing, by definition) fraudulent. Indeed, I 'm willing to bet that the very fact that people like me are trying to change your mind on this only strengthens your conviction that you have uncovered the truth about evolution. And, conversely, that when we stop trying (which should be ... right ... about ... now), you will feel completely vindicated.

docpotato
May 25th, 2004, 01:27 PM
It's funny that even after evolutionists perpetrate hoaxes to prove their theory, some other people working for the same theory go ahead and REVEAL that it's a hoax.

I would think that people like Nineveh here would be more in support of Nature magazine and the like since they are constantly revealing evolutionist hoaxes! Clearly they are doing the work of creationists for them, disproving things left and right so that the theory of evolution is now in shambles!

Of course they are quick to embrace the work and word of scientists when they reveal a hoax but loathe to accept the work of scientists when they don't like it. Funny that.

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by aharvey
You really are selective in what you choose to read, aren't you? That does explain quite a bit of your recent posts. How else could one possibly explain why in your most recent posts, you still claim that evolutionists use hoaxes to "prove" the theory of evolution?

I was giving examples of past hoaxes. ( MO = modus operandi = a method of procedure = past experience)


Like Jukia, too, I have to get back to work. To some extent this is work-related, being an evolutionary biologist and a biology professor and all. In addition (Nineveh, you'll get a laugh out of this!), I am helping to curate a new museum exhibit on the theory of evolution. Given my location in the Bible Belt, I thought it would be prudent to interact with some creationists to see how they think about these issues.

Yeah, and like Jukia you have time to make long winded posts, but not enough time to dial a phone. I've emailed CSI, I wonder where the info will come from first?


But it's clear that nothing will ever shake your steadfast belief that any evidence for evolutionary theory must be (I'm guessing, by definition) fraudulent. Indeed, I 'm willing to bet that the very fact that people like me are trying to change your mind on this only strengthens your conviction that you have uncovered the truth about evolution. And, conversely, that when we stop trying (which should be ... right ... about ... now), you will feel completely vindicated.

What's clear is I would like to find out if the Archaeoraptor is part of the Czerkas' exhibit in San Diego or not. Just a little evidence, a smidgen of proof, a few facts instead of "educated guesswork". I know, that's a lot to ask of an evo.


***

Speaking of reading the right things: "Why do you think it's on their main page?" (post 221)

The mammoth isn't on the "main" page of CSI (nor Coral Ridge's), I saw that when I emailed. I wonder where you got the idea it was (educated guess)?

Flipper
May 25th, 2004, 02:36 PM
The Archaeoraptor is as real as some of these (missing link) ape-man models on display at museums.

Did you have any particular displays in mind?

Flipper
May 25th, 2004, 02:45 PM
I just got off the phone from the SDMNH palaeontology department.

They do not have archaeoraptor in their new exhibition and pointed out to me straight away (without any prompting) that archaeoraptor was a fake. When I explained why I was asking, the person I was speaking to pointed out that the specimens they do have are amazingly obvious transitional forms. He said that the fossils are preserved in such detail that it's clear they are feathered raptors.

So I suppose that settles that?

Free-Agent Smith
May 25th, 2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

but it is why some organisms evolve [?] Do dogs evolve twice a year, at the beginnings of the warm and cold seasons or do they adapt? Does their DNA change each season to reflect it?


pterosaurs are archosaurs - the group that contains dinosaurs, birds, crocs, but pterosaurs are usually not nested within dinosaurs (which means they are not considered dinosaurs)

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/taxaform.html

Usually pterosaurs are presented with dinosaurs but not as dinosaurs. Probably because they are big mesozoic creatures. OK, they aren't classified as dinosaurs. What makes certain reptiles dinosaurs and not others?

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Flipper

I just got off the phone from the SDMNH palaeontology department.

They do not have archaeoraptor in their new exhibition and pointed out to me straight away (without any prompting) that archaeoraptor was a fake. When I explained why I was asking, the person I was speaking to pointed out that the specimens they do have are amazingly obvious transitional forms. He said that the fossils are preserved in such detail that it's clear they are feathered raptors.

So I suppose that settles that?

Thank you Flipper :) So there are no plastic models or pics? That's great!

Yep, that settles it for me... except the part about, "amazingly obvious transitional forms"

Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution's Natural History Museum (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=530798#post530798) seems to take issue.

Jukia
May 25th, 2004, 03:05 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Agent Smith

Do dogs evolve twice a year, at the beginnings of the warm and cold seasons or do they adapt? Does their DNA change each season to reflect it?
[/QUOT

I had a really smart *** comment for this but decided to be a Christian and keep my mouth shut.

aharvey
May 25th, 2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Agent Smith

Do dogs evolve twice a year, at the beginnings of the warm and cold seasons or do they adapt? Does their DNA change each season to reflect it?


You're not using the word "adapt" in its primary biological sense. You're referring to "acclimatization." An adaptation is a trait that evolved in response to natural selection.


Originally posted by Agent Smith

OK, they aren't classified as dinosaurs. What makes certain reptiles dinosaurs and not others?

Doesn't the Berkeley Museum site go into this?

aharvey
May 25th, 2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Thank you Flipper So there are no plastic models or pics? That's great!

Yep, that settles it for me... except the part about, "amazingly obvious transitional forms"

Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution's Natural History Museum seems to take issue.

Now you can't really say that, can you? He wrote the letter to which you refer five years ago, well before the "amazingly obvious transitional forms" hit the scene. Get it? Storrs Olson was not referring to the specimens that are on display in San Diego. Now if I understand your MO correctly, you're going to reply that unless I can prove that the fossils in the new exhibit are not the ones he was complaining about, then you are correct in implying that they are (despite the temporal incongruity)!

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by aharvey
Now you can't really say that, can you? He wrote the letter to which you refer five years ago, well before the "amazingly obvious transitional forms" hit the scene. Get it? Storrs Olson was not referring to the specimens that are on display in San Diego. Now if I understand your MO correctly, you're going to reply that unless I can prove that the fossils in the new exhibit are not the ones he was complaining about, then you are correct in implying that they are (despite the temporal incongruity)!

Ya know, busy busy guy... It would seem to me the first thing you might do would at least offer flipper the phone charge for fulfilling your promise and offereing the evidence to back your claim.

If I felt the urge, I'm sure I could find info about how these fossils really aren't "missing links". If they were, the world would not be able to escape the NEWS of it all. Any missing link anywhere for anything is usually at least a cover story on National Geographic.

Dimo
May 25th, 2004, 04:02 PM
Nineveh posted:

Dimo, really now. The reason you can't come up with evo-science backing your claim "junk DNA" has a "future use" is because it doesn't.

Dimo:

Like I said Nineveh, I have neither the time nor the understanding of this subject to try and convince you of something you do not want to understand. The whole subject started with your condemnation of science for using the term "junk" to referr to DNA for which there is no documented effect on a phenotype. If your argument is not that this in any way undermines the value of natural philosophy, then I have nothing further to convince you of. My claim that some DNA that appears to have no function may have a future use, is a peripheral issue here. It has no bearing on your original argument. The truth is neither you nor I know for sure if this peripheral example is accurate or not. You choose the side that this cannot possibly be so, I believe that it is possible and likely.

At any rate this term "junk" is inappropriate. And since you and I agree that it is a misnomer then why are we discussing it anymore.

Ninveh posted:

You wanted to appear to have an understanding of something you didn't, so you told a "little white lie" out of your ignorance.

Dimo:

I do not want to appear to be anything that I am not. I did not claim that I had any peer reviewed literature on this. I explained right from the beggining that my example was from my own personal experience. After considering that the term "junk" is a mosnomer, I felt that discussing the remaining misconceptions would only serve to confuse the situation. I do believe that this subject is being investigated by professionals. Perhaps you should consult these folks, I am sure they have much peer reviewed evidence for one or both sides of this debate.

Nineveh posted:

Sort of like what evo did when it named DNA it didn't understand as "junk". And that in a nut shell was my point: the world view of evo functions by the rule: "if you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with BS". Thank you for illustrating my point.

Dimo:

But you said in a previous post that scientists understand that "junk" DNA is not really "junk". It is the layperson who grasps onto this term "junk" as more explanatory than it really is. All scientists meant by "junk" was that they did not know the influence of this DNA. Kind of like when some people throw things out that seem to be no longer usefull. Although this was not the best analogy many people in the general public, (and I'm qouting you) "for better or worse let the term stick". Then lay people such as yourself use it as evidence that these scientists are BSing us.

There is also another saying; "People often find what they don't understand to be of no value or use, or even wrong or evil." You my friend are a prime example of this.

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Dimo
Like I said Nineveh, I have neither the time nor the understanding of this subject to try and convince you of something you do not want to understand.

It's pretty simple Dimo, you were bluffing and got busted. I am finding it humorous that evos can't seem to find the time to prove their bold statements, but can spend quite a while making these long winded posts.


The whole subject started with your condemnation of science for using the term "junk" to referr to DNA for which there is no documented effect on a phenotype. If your argument is not that this in any way undermines the value of natural philosophy, then I have nothing further to convince you of. My claim that some DNA that appears to have no function may have a future use, is a peripheral issue here. It has no bearing on your original argument. The truth is neither you nor I know for sure if this peripheral example is accurate or not. You choose the side that this cannot possibly be so, I believe that it is possible and likely.

My whole argument was proven with your attitute. It takes a pompous attitude to look at DNA, not know what it is, then lable it junk. I've already told you this 2 or 3 times. I'm sorry you still don't understand. But you do provide a good example of the attitude.


At any rate this term "junk" is inappropriate. And since you and I agree that it is a misnomer then why are we discussing it anymore.

Because you still fail to see offereing your personal belief of "junk DNA" is just that: your idea, no peer review to back you up, no scientific underpinnings, it's just your idea being passed off onto someone you felt was ignorant about the concept of 'junk DNA".



I do not want to appear to be anything that I am not. I did not claim that I had any peer reviewed literature on this. I explained right from the beggining that my example was from my own personal experience. After considering that the term "junk" is a mosnomer, I felt that discussing the remaining misconceptions would only serve to confuse the situation. I do believe that this subject is being investigated by professionals. Perhaps you should consult these folks, I am sure they have much peer reviewed evidence for one or both sides of this debate.

I didn't have a misconception of "junk DNA" you do with your belief that evo-science would even suggest your definition for it.



But you said in a previous post that scientists understand that "junk" DNA is not really "junk". It is the layperson who grasps onto this term "junk" as more explanatory than it really is. All scientists meant by "junk" was that they did not know the influence of this DNA. Kind of like when some people throw things out that seem to be no longer usefull. Although this was not the best analogy many people in the general public, (and I'm qouting you) "for better or worse let the term stick". Then lay people such as yourself use it as evidence that these scientists are BSing us.

And it's still not defined by evo-science the way you define it.


There is also another saying; "People often find what they don't understand to be of no value or use, or even wrong or evil." You my friend are a prime example of this.

Why? Because I won't let you buffalo me into your definition of "junk DNA"?

You ask why we are still going on with this, it's because you keep replying offering longer and longer ecxcuses for your lack of information on why you believe "junk DNA" is defined as you define it.

For me, the matter was settled when you stated you did't have any evo-science to back your belief.

Dimo
May 25th, 2004, 04:42 PM
OK Nineveh whatever you say.

I hope you can sleep tonight.

Stratnerd
May 25th, 2004, 05:28 PM
Do dogs evolve twice a year, at the beginnings of the warm and cold seasons or do they adapt? Does their DNA change each season to reflect it? aharvey already pointed it out but changes in an individual is not evolution. Evolution is a population-level phenomenon where there is a net change in the gene pool.


OK, they aren't classified as dinosaurs. What makes certain reptiles dinosaurs and not others? it's sort of the same line of reasoning that makes other groups part of or separate than other groups; that is, characters (such as hair, feathers, teeth, etc) reveal memberships. Pterosaurs have characters (namely in the skull) that group them in the larger group of Archosaurs. Pterosaurs, however, have a certain ankle articulation that is not found in dinosaurs and an analysis of many such traits (phylogeny) doesn't put them nested within dinosaurs.

Make any sense?

Flipper
May 25th, 2004, 08:03 PM
Nineveh:


So there are no plastic models or pics? That's great!

I asked about the bones and models. I didn't specifically ask about pictures because, as they flagged archaeo as a fake straight away, I didn't see the need to.

The point they were keen to make was that the fossils they did have were compelling evidence for transitional forms. I didn't ask if they were pre-1999 discoveries, but

My approach was fairly simple (paraphrasing slightly): "do you have archaeoraptor anywhere on exhibit, either the original fossil or
models of it?" And they said "no, it was a composite hoax."

Now have a look at these pages. This dinosaur, Confuciusornis, is indisputably feathered. It even has flight feathers.

http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDconfu.html


The ancestral theropod dinosaur had three functional fingers in the hand: the thumb, index and middle fingers. Birds retain these three fingers, although they support flight rather than grasping. We have long wondered how dinosaurs made the transition from a grasping to a flying hand, and Confuciusornis gives us new insight into that problem. Confuciusornis still has fully functional raptorial claws on its thumb and middle fingers, but its index finger—the finger that supports the flight feathers—is composed of broad, flat bones and a reduced claw. As with other basal maniraptors, the thumb and middle fingers converge on one another while grasping in Confuciusornis, enabling its hand to support flight while still retaining some grasping ability.

Or this one, Caudipteryx:

http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDcaud.html

Some other very interesting details about this dinosaur that provides more supplementary evidence for the therapod origins of birds. They have gizzards that are found to contain stones to aid digestion, something many birds also have. Admittedly, crocodiles do too, but as they're all linked by common ancestry that's not really a surprise.

Also:


Caudipteryx is preserved in a typical avian death pose: the head and neck are arched over the back and the legs lie close together on the same side of the body.

The soft tissues that help dinosaurs support their long necks shrink after death, thus bending the head and neck backward over the body.

They make the point that the same is true with birds.

Both interesting little asides that I was not aware of.

Nineveh
May 25th, 2004, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Flipper

I asked about the bones and models. I didn't specifically ask about pictures because, as they flagged archaeo as a fake straight away, I didn't see the need to.

The point they were keen to make was that the fossils they did have were compelling evidence for transitional forms. I didn't ask if they were pre-1999 discoveries, but

My approach was fairly simple (paraphrasing slightly): "do you have archaeoraptor anywhere on exhibit, either the original fossil or
models of it?" And they said "no, it was a composite hoax."

I trust you aren't lying about it :)


Now have a look at these pages. This dinosaur, Confuciusornis, is indisputably feathered. It even has flight feathers.

http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDconfu.html

Or this one, Caudipteryx:

http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDcaud.html

Some other very interesting details about this dinosaur that provides more supplementary evidence for the therapod origins of birds. They have gizzards that are found to contain stones to aid digestion, something many birds also have. Admittedly, crocodiles do too, but as they're all linked by common ancestry that's not really a surprise.

Also:

They make the point that the same is true with birds.

Both interesting little asides that I was not aware of.

I too, found some interesting info about the "missing link" before the archaeoraptor (1996). I emailed Storrs Olson and asked what he made of the new exhibit, I hope to hear from him. But, like many of these "significant finds" (especially from China where these bird fossils are being found), I think I'll pass on jumping on the band wagon just yet.

Flipper
May 25th, 2004, 08:39 PM
I trust you aren't lying about it

Nuh-uhh. I would invite you to give 'em a call yourself if you have any doubt. I spoke to a young-sounding palaeontologist called "Tom". I didn't ask his surname but there can't be that many at the museum.

The palaeontology department's direct line is 619 255 0232.

If I were lying, i would have said that I had asked about the pictures. I see they have some montages at the exhibit but I didn't think to ask.

However, I was more interested to see how they would portray Archaeoraptor, as that seemed to me more indicative of the museum's attitude towards fakes. I asked my question in a neutral "I'm just interested in dinosaurs" kind of a way to do my best to avoid poisoning the well. I think they were keen to make the point that the real dinosaur fossils they do have tell a pretty clear story. I have to say, the Liaoning fossils are pretty much a grand slam for transitionals. You have dinosaurs that have feathers, and fossils more similar to birds but with saurian heads and four clawed, grasping raptor like feet.

I mean, what are you looking for from transitionals? How much clearer do you expect it to be?

Free-Agent Smith
May 26th, 2004, 12:49 AM
These two dictionaries don't seem to show much difference in the definition but I will post again with another source from my library when I get back.


Adaptation: (Merriam-Webster)
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of adapting : the state of being adapted
2 : adjustment to environmental conditions: as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment


Adaptation: (Encarta)

noun

1. adapting: the process or state of changing to fit new circumstances or conditions, or the resulting change
2. something adapted to fit need: something that has been modified for a purpose
a film adaptation of a novel
3. biology change to suit environment: the development of physical and behavioral characteristics that allow organisms to survive and reproduce in their habitats
4. physiology diminishing sensory response: the diminishing response of a sense organ to a sustained stimulus


Acclimatization: (Encarta)
transitive and intransitive verb

adapt: to become accustomed to a new climate or environment, or help somebody become accustomed to it


Acclimatization: (Merriam-Webster)
transitive senses : to adapt to a new temperature, altitude, climate, environment, or situation
intransitive senses : to become acclimatized
- ac·cli·ma·tiz·er noun

Free-Agent Smith
May 26th, 2004, 03:21 AM
For this one I am using MCGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms. I will type it exactly as it is written in the book.

Acclimatization:
[EVOL]* Adaptation of a speciesor population to a changed environment over several generations. Also known as acclimation.(I looked for this later version of the term and it refered me back to this one.)

Adaptation:
[GEN]* The occurance of genetic changes in a population or species as the result of natural selection so that it adjusts to new or altered environmental conditions.
[PHYSIO]* The occurance of physiological changes in an individual exposed to changed conditions; for example, tanning of the skin in sunshine, or increased red blood cell counts at high altitudes.

* EVOL denoted this is an evolution term.
GEN, genetic and PHYSIO is physiology.



After taking the time to read thses definitions I would have to say that I believe in the physiological definition of adaptation more than the evol one but I will reserve my opinion on the genetic one until I have checked it out further.



So for aharvey....

Yes, I meant to say adaptation and not acclimatization. But thank you for offering your opinion.

Free-Agent Smith
May 26th, 2004, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

aharvey already pointed it out but changes in an individual is not evolution. Evolution is a population-level phenomenon where there is a net change in the gene pool. No offense to any one else who believes in evolution but I seem to be understanding your posts better.


it's sort of the same line of reasoning that makes other groups part of or separate than other groups; that is, characters (such as hair, feathers, teeth, etc) reveal memberships. Pterosaurs have characters (namely in the skull) that group them in the larger group of Archosaurs. Pterosaurs, however, have a certain ankle articulation that is not found in dinosaurs and an analysis of many such traits (phylogeny) doesn't put them nested within dinosaurs.

Make any sense?

Let me ask this then, the phylogeny of the pterosaur says it is a reptile but doesn't have the same ancestral history of the other reptiles which are in groups or characterized as dinosaurs? If this was a statement would it be correct, in your opinion?

Nineveh
May 26th, 2004, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by Flipper

Nuh-uhh. I would invite you to give 'em a call yourself if you have any doubt. I spoke to a young-sounding palaeontologist called "Tom". I didn't ask his surname but there can't be that many at the museum.

The palaeontology department's direct line is 619 255 0232.

If I were lying, i would have said that I had asked about the pictures. I see they have some montages at the exhibit but I didn't think to ask.

What part of, "I trust you aren't lying" did you miss?

I am waiting for an email reply, but I sent the email hours before you called.


However, I was more interested to see how they would portray Archaeoraptor, as that seemed to me more indicative of the museum's attitude towards fakes. I asked my question in a neutral "I'm just interested in dinosaurs" kind of a way to do my best to avoid poisoning the well. I think they were keen to make the point that the real dinosaur fossils they do have tell a pretty clear story. I have to say, the Liaoning fossils are pretty much a grand slam for transitionals. You have dinosaurs that have feathers, and fossils more similar to birds but with saurian heads and four clawed, grasping raptor like feet.

I mean, what are you looking for from transitionals? How much clearer do you expect it to be?

Well, I have a few points. The first is the Archaeoraptor isn't the first "missing link from dinos to birds" to come from that area of the world. We got one in 1996 and again in 1999. The second is, well, there seems to be many "dino to bird missing links" coming from just that one tiny area of the world. I guess I could consider it convenient so many decided to evolve right there together. The last point is, this would be the first "missing link" for anything. Evo seems to like to BOLD CLAIM a "missing link" then later we all find out the evidence is either A. a hoax, B. What is it (bird or ape), or C. The other what it is (either Man or dino). With this picture of "missing links", I think it would be prudent to abstain from the belief dinos evolved into birds based on an bones from China, not to mention an exhibit by the folks from Utah. I think I will wait a few and see what the "peer review" says about it this time next year. It would be really cool to get Storrs Olson's take on it, if he finds the time to reply to me, I'll share his thoughts on the thread.

aharvey
May 26th, 2004, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Agent Smith

For this one I am using MCGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms. I will type it exactly as it is written in the book.

Acclimatization:
[EVOL]* Adaptation of a speciesor population to a changed environment over several generations. Also known as acclimation.(I looked for this later version of the term and it refered me back to this one.)

Adaptation:
[GEN]* The occurance of genetic changes in a population or species as the result of natural selection so that it adjusts to new or altered environmental conditions.
[PHYSIO]* The occurance of physiological changes in an individual exposed to changed conditions; for example, tanning of the skin in sunshine, or increased red blood cell counts at high altitudes.

* EVOL denoted this is an evolution term.
GEN, genetic and PHYSIO is physiology.



After taking the time to read thses definitions I would have to say that I believe in the physiological definition of adaptation more than the evol one but I will reserve my opinion on the genetic one until I have checked it out further.



So for aharvey....

Yes, I meant to say adaptation and not acclimatization. But thank you for offering your opinion.

Agent Smith,

Okay, take it from me, a professional biologist: the definitions you got from popular dictionaries are at odds with how professional biologists use these terms. In particular, there is no difference between your above definitions of acclimatization and the "genetic" definition of adaptation. Both of these are the biologist's working definition of adaptation; the physiological definition you give for adaptation is what the biologist refers to as acclimatization. Acclimatization is not an evolutionary phenomenon, adaptation is.

So what? Well, when Stratnerd first referred to "adaptation," he was using the biological definition (i.e, with the evolutionary context). When you responded by saying you didn't always associate adaptation with evolution, that's because you weren't referring to the same concept that Stratnerd was. So go back to your post (#161), reconsider Stratnerd's point using whatever term you want as long as it reflects his intent (namely, a trait that evolves in response to natural selection), and see what you think.