[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
what the hell do you want critically analyzed here?

that they found human footprints that are 6 billion years old? that horses lived at the same time dinosaurs did? that all fossil records that point to the valididty of evolutionary theory have been tampered with and are frauds????

show me one single CREDIBLE source that confirms these findings. harvard, yale, univ. of moscow, stockholm, univ. of capetown...you name it buddy.

until then, my analysis of your 'data' is: you are full of $hit!

AS if you haven't proven yourself incapable already, you shield yourself behind "read what they said" crap. You have to make an argument. Sticking behind the common dogma is not going to get you anywhere in this. I don't give a damn what the scientist say. Why don't you say "this this this, thus x" instead of "OMFG U R YEH DIPSHIT CAN U NOT RED?!LOLZORS!"

Just some advice.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
You have to make an argument. Sticking behind the common dogma is not going to get you anywhere in this.

it doesn't have to 'get me anywhere'. like i said, if you think science is full of sh1t, then come up with a better! paradigm.

if you want me to answer a specfic question, BE FU<KING SPECIFIC.

just some advice.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
it doesn't have to 'get me anywhere'. like i said, if you think science is full of sh1t, then come up with a better! paradigm.

if you want me to answer a specfic question, BE FU<KING SPECIFIC.

just some advice.

ebuddy already has some questions for you. I'm just here for the ride.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
ebuddy already has some questions for you. I'm just here for the ride.

oh, i see. you don't have anything to add to the discussion?

okay, then just STFU and go back to your homework...you need to learn a little bit more about political ideology, kiddo.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
oh, i see. you don't have anything to add to the discussion?

okay, then just STFU and go back to your homework...you need to learn a little bit more about political ideology, kiddo.

Listen robby, If I wanted to lower myself to your level I would.

You have said nothing for this discussion. All you have done is refer people to a source without presenting an argument. I'd say ebuddy's doing a great job, and I don't want to echo him.

By learning a little more political ideology, you mean emulating your mindless Marxist beliefs? Suuuuuure. I'll go do that. Yup.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
All you have done is refer people to a source without presenting an argument.

what can i say, i don't have an argument with these people. i'm 100% in agreement (even that the theory isn't complete yet, and there are still a lot of questions) not because of dogma, but because of 'cross-referencing' this stuff for a long time now (from various international sources). hey, should i try to refute what i'm in agreement with?

...or do you actually want me to write into this forum the tenets of evolutionary theory? there are TONS of books written on this stuff, and i've posted more than enough links.

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
I'd say ebuddy's doing a great job...

i'd say all he has done is post lies, conjecture and countless ad hominems. see, the difference between him and me is, that he DOES NOT UNDERSTAND how evolution works. you can tell by his comments. if one purposefully choses to ignore the complete theory (of evolution) then of course it will sound odd and ill conceived. the rest of his posts are simply unsubstantiated claims (e.g. the bit about the human footprints besides dinosaurs (claiming they are from the same time period) etc.)

please, show me one credible source which supports this. i'm not going to argue an 'x-files' premise. really.

here is another great resource.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Blanco calling for links. Why do you want links? I gave you names, institutes, and dates. Google it yourself brother and decide which one to read. I have and so should you.

Perhaps you are saying this because you can't find any credible studies yourself, everything I found was either linked from or on a creationists site.

Google for "moon landing hoax" and you will find about 35,000 pages with all kinds of stories or wild conspiracies.

Because they took remains from one species and connected it to the remains of another. This fossil was debunked in 1985 man.

I will quickly educate you on this, but do you really believe they altered 6 fossils in several different countries in several different years all for the purpose of propagating a hoax?

Now for some background of the investigations. It was back in 1983...

1 - In 83M. Trop wrote an article questioning the authenticity of the specimen ("Is Archaeopteryx a Fake?" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 121-122). Two years later a series of four articles appeared in the British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985 issues) declaring Archaeopteryx to be a carefully contrived hoax. These articles were authored by some of the leading scientists in England: Fred Hoyle, R.S. Watkins, N.C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov, and L.M. Spetner. And this brought the controversy to the attention of the scientific world.

Keep in mind as we discuss these specimens that, of all six, only the London and Berlin specimens are usable; the rest are hardly recognizable as anything. So all the evidence, pro and con, must come from one or the other of those two specimens. This crisis over the specimens began in 1983 when six leading British scientists, led by Fred Hoyle and R.S. Watkins, declared in print that Archaeopteryx was a definite hoax, just as much as Piltdown man had been a hoax. These researchers went to the London Museum and carefully studied and photographed the specimen. That specimen is contained in a slab and a counter slab?thus giving a front and back view of it. Here is what these well-known scientists discovered:

Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, and Rabilizirov are astrophysicists, Spetner is a physicist and electronics expert, J. Watkins is an M.D., R.S. Watkins is a physicist. Not a single paleontologist or ornithologist among them. In fact, none of them had ANY experience in paleontology at the time of their study. More about the lack of experience later. Just because they were "leading scientists" at the time doesn't mean that they were qualified to reach any sort of legitimate conclusions about any fossils.

The assertion that only two of the seven (not six) specimens are usable is bunk. I'm not an expert I can see that that isn't true. Of course the London specimen, the only one examined by Hoyle et al., and the Berlin specimen are quite clearly Archaeopteryx. The Maxberg specimen takes an expert, but it has clear feather impressions. The Teyler specimem is incomplete but also has feather impressions. The Eichst?tt specimen is quite complete and clearly like the Berlin specimen, but there are no feather impressions. The Solnhofen specimen is without question an Archaeopteryx. It is complete and easily identified and has clear feather impressions. And finally, the Solnhofer Aktien-Verein specimen is clearly recognizable as another Archaeopteryx to even an untrained eye. It has some features that are slightly more bird-like, enough to have been classified as an new species, A. bavarica. It too has clear feather impressions.

It's funny how much trouble the forgers went to in anticipation of the publication of Darwin's new theory. Why, in 1855, 4 years before any but a few had even heard of the theory, they forged the Teyler specimen. And A. bavarica must have been falsified while still in the slab before discovery since the chain of possession is well known and witnessed.

And most of the study was done from photographs. Isn't it interesting that the assertion was published in a journal of photography?

2 - Slab mismatch. The two slabs do not appear to match. If the specimen was genuine, the front and back slabs should be mirror images of one another. A comparison of the present specimen with an 1863 drawing indicates an alteration was later made to the left wing of the specimen. The 1863 left wing was totally mismatched on the two slabs; the later alteration brought the match closer together.

Nonsense. They can tell from a drawing that the slab was altered? I wonder if maybe the artist got it wrong? But such is the quality of the evidence required by "creation science."

3 - Artificial feathers. *Hoyle, *Watkins, and others decided that the body skeleton and arms were genuine, but that the feather markings (those shallow lines radiating outward from the forelimbs) were carefully imprinted on the fossil by an unknown hand.

They "decided?" Of course, that is what they set out to show. They "decided" this before they had examined the fossils.

4 - Cement blobs. They also found additional evidence of the forgery: cement blobs used during the etching process.

"They suggested the following procedure for creating the feather impressions: 1) The forgers removed rock from around the tail and `wing' (forelimb) regions. 2) They then applied a thin layer of cement, probably made from limestone of the Solnhofen quarries, to the excavated areas. 3) They impressed feathers on the cement and held them in place by adhesive material (referred to as `chewing gum' blobs). Attempts to remove the blobs from the rock were obvious?the slabs were scraped, brushed, and chipped. However, an oversight remained in the cleaning process: one `chewing gum' blob and fragments of others were left behind."? Venus E. Clausen, "Recent Debate over Archaeopteryx."

Qualified paleontologists have examined all of the specimens and have noticed nothing unusual that is not the result of the splitting, cleaning and preparation (to the extent that an Archaeopteryx specimen can be prepared). The blobs are actually remnants of one of the fine layers of sediment that had fallen away when the slabs were separated.

And, of course, there is the idea that 150 years ago someone could perform the steps described so that it cannot be immediately recognizable. I challenge anyone who thinks that this was done to do so, using only techniques and materials that were available at the time.

5 - Museum withdraws specimen. After their initial examination of the London specimen, they requested permission for a neutral testing center to further examine the blob area, utilizing an electron microscope, carbon-14 dating, and spectrophotometry. Three months later, museum officials sent word that the specimen was being withdrawn from further examination.

These bufoons were treated with the utmost courtesy and respect and even given some samples from the surface of the London specimen. Later they wanted to come back for more. Somehow their demands to chip away at the fossil were considered unreasonable. I wonder why? They had already demonstrated that they were incompetent for such work (see below). It is my understanding that even today a qualified scientist is allowed access the the specimen. But I would not expect to be give such access.

6 - History of forgeries. Hoyle, Watkins, and the others then checked into historical sources and declared that they had discovered that, dating back to the early 18th century, the Solnhofen limestone area was notorious for its fossil forgeries. Genuine fossils, taken from the limestone quarries, had been altered and then sold to museums. These fossils brought good money because they appeared to be strange new species.

Really? Anything more than just assertion here? And so what? The question is if Archaeopteryx is a forgery.

7 - Discoveries follow prediction. Thomas H. Huxley, Darwin's British champion, whom he called his "bulldog," had predicted that fossils of strange new species would be found. Hoyle and others believed that, thus encouraged, the forgers went to work to produce them.

Indeed! They went to work on them at least 5 years before the prediction was made. And the result of that work wasn't discovered until almost 120 years later (the Teyler specimen).

8 - The Meyer connection. Of the six Archaeopteryx fossils, only three specimens show the obvious feather impressions. These three specimens were sent to Hermann von Meyer, in Germany, who, within a 20-year period, analyzed and described them. Hoyle and company suggest that they came in as reptiles and left with wings! It just so happens that Meyer worked closely with the Haberlein family, and they acquired his two best feathered reptile fossils?and then sold them to the museums. It was the Haberlein family that made the profit? not the quarry owners. It would be relatively easy for them to split some of it with Meyer.

Yet another conspiracy of the evil evolutionist... But the fact remains that Archaeopteryx isn't a forgery, none of them. Funny how the double-strike feathers aren't mentioned. That was a big deal for Hoyle et al. They probably were inspired by a monograph by Sir Gavin de Beer in 1954. He was the first to notice the apparent anomoly although he couldn't explain it. The double strikes appear on both the London and Berlin specimens. Hoyle et al. commented on the London specimen and Siegfried Rietschel did a microscopic study of the Berlin specmin. The double strike is actually two overlapping layers of feathers. When the top row is broken away, the underlying feather is visible.

Nor does this article mention that Hoyle and his team found "foreign material" in their samples. The asserted that this was evidence of the forgery. They were informed that the foreign material was preservative that is routinely applied to fossils to protect them. Hoyle was embarrassed, insulted and furious and blamed the Natural History Museum. Of course, if he had any sort of qualifications in paleontology, he would have been aware of this. He demanded new samples and was turned down. Can anyone blame the Museum for not allowing these clowns further access to the fossil?

And finally, microscopic examination of the fossils reveal hairline cracks (not visible to the naked eye) that traverse both the slab and counter slab of all examined specimens. They are perfectly aligned. This means that the cracks were made while the fossil was still in the ground. These cracks also pass through the feather impressions. The fill material in the cracks in the slab also fills the cracks in the feathers, which are perfectly continuous with the slab cracks. This single fact is conclusive proof beyond a reasonable doubt (suitable for a court of law) that the feather impressions are not forgeries.

[ebuddy]

by blanco; what can i say, i don't have an argument with these people. i'm 100% in agreement (even that the theory isn't complete yet, and there are still a lot of questions) not because of dogma, but because of 'cross-referencing' this stuff for a long time now (from various international sources). hey, should i try to refute what i'm in agreement with?

Certainly not, but using the same criteria you should then believe in the historical accuracy of the New Testament. Is this also true? Are you as critical of the "unknown" regarding the natural as you are the alleged spiritual or religious? I doubt it, but pardon me if I find your defense of the natural to sound very religious.

And finally, microscopic examination of the fossils reveal hairline cracks (not visible to the naked eye) that traverse both the slab and counter slab of all examined specimens.

Conducted by whom? When? I'm talking about studies conducted in 2000. Are you still discussing experimentation conducted in the 50's? Details please.

This single fact is conclusive proof beyond a reasonable doubt (suitable for a court of law) that the feather impressions are not forgeries.

Are you prepared to admit, using the same conclusive proof, beyond any reasonable doubt (suitable for a court of law) that the events of the New Testament are not fabrications by it's historical accuracy as compared to other 'known factual' historical pieces by that of Plato, Ceasar, Tacitus, Pliny, and Aristotle? Why is this relevant you may ask? It is relevant because I find it's easy for an atheist, secular humanist, or naturalist to accept contradictions in science while pointing out alleged Biblical contradictions. I believe they fight with equal veracity-those things which science has not proven; equating to a different God in need of equal defense. You've offered three paragraphs of proof for your case of one 'authentic' fossil "transitional" while failing to realize that we should be littered with them. I've found the explanations for this lack of evidence to be equal to an uncertainty before you leap into long, exhaustive explanations of punctuated equillibrium. Blanco may agree with an incomplete supposition 100%. I do not. Then again, I'm not as dogmatic. Which again; is all I've been trying to say all along.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Certainly not, but using the same criteria you should then believe in the historical accuracy of the New Testament.

wow. certainly not. the 'biblical new testament' is NOT a 'history' book and was NEVER intended to be viewed and read as such.

maybe if you could be more specific as to what 'part' of the new testament you were referring to? what bible do you think is the most accurate? the 'king james' version? the german 'lutheran version'? the orthodox version which is used in russia and serbia? which one?

there are major differences there, you know?

my view on religion:

first of all, it is very difficult to find a universal definition for 'religion' since the concept in and of itself is a very ethnocentric one. but from everything i've read it probably started out as set different myths (oral accounts passed on from generation to generation) 8 - 10 thousand years ago, when humans started 'asking themselves' the serious questions about life (what happens after i'm dead?, is there a 'higher power'?, is there something like 'fate?)...

the rest is history...


but in all honesty, i've read too many accounts (not by atheists, but actually by religious people (even priests)) that very eloquently described 'what the new testament really is' and that much that is in there is due to personal as well as cultural prejudices...which of course is QUITE okay...since again, it's NOT a history book.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Conducted by whom? When? I'm talking about studies conducted in 2000. Are you still discussing experimentation conducted in the 50's? Details please.

Charig, A.J.; Greenaway,; F. Milner, A.N.; Walker, C.A. & Whybrow, P.J. (1986) Archaeopteryx is not a forgery. Science, 232: 622-626.

I am aware of no credible studies in 2000, would you give an author or some direction I am finding nothing even on NS.
The only thing I have found was from answersingenesis and was speculatuion that has been refuted since before the story went mainstream.

Are you prepared to admit, using the same conclusive proof, beyond any reasonable doubt (suitable for a court of law) that the events of the New Testament are not fabrications by it's historical accuracy as compared to other 'known factual' historical pieces by that of Plato, Ceasar, Tacitus, Pliny, and Aristotle?

No, this is rediculous their is little to no evidence for either.

You've offered three paragraphs of proof for your case of one 'authentic' fossil "transitional" while failing to realize that we should be littered with them.

Some important factors prevent the formation of fossils from being common.

Fossilization itself is not a particularly common event. It requires conditions which preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms which don't live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely.

Many types of animals are fragile and don't preserve well.

Many species have small ranges. Their chance of fossilization will be proportionally small.

The evolution of new species probably is fairly rapid in geological terms, so the transitions between species will be uncommon.

Passenger pigeons once numbered in the billions and went extinct less than 200 years ago. How many passenger pigeon fossils can you find? If they are hard to find, why should we expect to find fossils that are likely from smaller populations and have been subject to millions of years of potential erosion?

Other processes destroy fossils. Erosion (and/or lack of deposition in the first place) often destroys hundreds of millions of years or more of the geological record, so the geological record at any place usually has long gaps.

Fossils can also be destroyed by heat or pressure when buried deep underground.

As rare as fossils are, fossil discovery is still rarer. For the most part, we find only fossils which have been exposed by erosion, and only if the exposure is recent enough that the fossils themselves don't erode.

As climates change, species will move, so we cannot expect a transition to occur all at one spot. Fossils often must be collected from all over a continent to find the transitions.

Only Europe and North America have been well explored for fossils because that's where most paleontologists have lived. Furthermore, regional politics interfere with collecting fossils. Some fabulous fossils have been found in China only recently because the politics until recently prevented most paleontology there.

The shortage is not just in fossils, but in paleontologists and taxonomists. Preparing and analyzing the material for just one lineage can take a decade of work. There are likely hundreds of transitional fossils sitting in museum drawers, unknown because nobody knowledgeable has examined them.

Description of fossils is often limited to professional literature and doesn't get popularized. This is especially true of marine microfossils, which have the best record.

[ebuddy]

Blanco and Mikellanes; I owe both of you an apology on this last one and I owe Lurkalot a thank you. I admit, I had already been reading on archaeoptoraptor (which had definitively and conclusively been deemed a hoax) and read your article on Archaeopteryx. I couldn't believe you posted this and jumped on it. I apologize, I was reading one thing and responding with another. Please accept my apology.

Now, about Archaeopteryx.

We know that paleontologists are generally not looking for any linear ancestoral pattern. It is commonly held that they are looking for transitional features and/or a collateral ancestoral pattern. My question; if this Archaeopteryx is an ancestor, collatoral or not-what would establish it's relationship to dinosaur and/or reptile? Why would it experience such change when other specimens of bird strongly resembling the modern bird are found among them and did not? Or, what would separate it as it's own species? That is to say, how can one know for certain that this was simply not a unique bird in and of itself? You realize of course, these are the same questions paleontologists and other experts are asking one another. As always, it's not as 100% conclusive as you'd like to think. One in your position would not be too quick to mention how little we know of natural aviation for example. The reason I ask is this, if linear ancestry equates to the relationship; me to my mother and collateral ancestry would equate to me and my cousin, or even aunt and uncle-how could my cousin have existed before my brother was born? In fact if I recall correctly (which is problematic historically ) allbeit, modern bird was found in strata dating as much as 75million years prior to the dating of the Archaeopteryx specimen as well as some dated relatively similarly such as; Confuciusornis, Liaoningornis, and Eoalulavis. All with features that categorically equate them to birds quite simply.

Realize also that you had said a couple of other things that interested me; "feathers" (plural), when it's my understanding we have one fossilized feather. Another thing you said was that there are 6 total Archaeopteryx specimens and questioned how these could all be fraudulent, but then also said; "only the London and Berlin specimens are usable; the rest are hardly recognizable as anything." You can't really have it both ways. We have one or two examples to use, (although I thought another one was found in 1995, that also caused some problems for the "old thought" regarding the inability of these birds to fly effectively. If I recall, it is now understood to have been quite an adept little flier with optic features to support the need of an adept flier.) Either way both of what was considered to be "usable" specimens come from the same exact location. period. A location I might add, that had a long history of providing greedy artisans. Let's look at the supposition however, Are we comparing birds to reptiles, then to dinosaurs??? What is the alleged connection?

It is no wonder to me that when you consider the enormous structural differences between these classes of animals you have to see this in another light. ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D. Steward, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Arcaeopteryx and other similar birds have teeth with flat-topped surfaces and large roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, are protuberant like saws and have narrow roots.

Swinton; �The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.�

Romer; �This Jurassic bird (Archaeopteryx) stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of its presumed thecodont ancestry nor of its relation to later �proper� birds than before.�

Studies by anatomists like S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, and A.D. Walker have concluded that archaeopteryx is nothing more than a "toothed bird". IMHO; I find their teeth to be so unique to that of any reptile that a simple comparison cannot be made.

Walt Brown; �Significantly, two modern birds have recently been found in rock strata dated by evolutionists as much older than Archaeopteryx. Therefore, Archaeopteryx could not be ancestral to modern birds.�

Feduccia on reptile-bird evolution; "Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century."

Again I say to you; information that allegedly supports the theory is presented as fact and irrefutable when in truth the specimens in question are highly questionable. Their origins, their features, and unfortunately due to human nature's desire for money-their authenticity. In this case I happen to believe the specimens are not fraudulent, but I think it's a stretch to say they are collaterally (my word) related in any way, shape, or form. Scales to feathers? I think not.

Fossilization;

originally posted by mikellanes; Fossilization itself is not a particularly common event.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by this as much fossil evidence of many things is available to us.

It requires conditions which preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms which don't live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely.

This I'll give you, but I noticed you didn't mention quite simply; water. Some may disagree with you for example; Walt Brown concludes; �Fossils all over the world show evidences of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish, show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. Many other animals, buried in mass graves and in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas. These observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly�not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of the rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change.�

You may disagree, I'm just posing arguments to the contrary. Evidence only conclusively states what one wants it to state. I find it states nothing 100% conclusively.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Please accept my apology.

No problem, now I understand what you were so adamant about

My question; if this Archaeopteryx is an ancestor, collatoral or not-what would establish it's relationship to dinosaur and/or reptile? Why would it experience such change when other specimens of bird strongly resembling the modern bird are found among them and did not?

First question is debatable, depends who was in charge of the findings, I will look more in to it. Second question is almost infuriating as we have been over this several times, just because monkeys exist and apes have evolved in a different direction does not negate that we evolved from a common ancestor now does it.

Or, what would separate it as it's own species? That is to say, how can one know for certain that this was simply not a unique bird in and of itself?

It depends on who does the classification and what methods are used, there is no clear divide, I have said this before, if there was a clear cut divide my thought process would lean more towards a creator, since no clear divide is present I find it strong evidence for evolution.

You realize of course, these are the same questions paleontologists and other experts are asking one another.

I have never seen this asked as the above answer I just posted is understood as part of science and evolution.

In fact if I recall correctly (which is problematic historically ) allbeit, modern bird was found in strata dating as much as 75million years prior to the dating of the Archaeopteryx specimen as well as some dated relatively similarly such as; Confuciusornis, Liaoningornis, and Eoalulavis. All with features that categorically equate them to birds quite simply.

I will have to look back in to this, I thought the conclusion was the dating methods used were in err and have since been dated correctly?

Realize also that you had said a couple of other things that interested me; "feathers" (plural), when it's my understanding we have one fossilized feather.

There are feathers, 2 layers of feathers actually.

Another thing you said was that there are 6 total Archaeopteryx specimens and questioned how these could all be fraudulent, but then also said; "only the London and Berlin specimens are usable; the rest are hardly recognizable as anything."

That was a quote from the Scientists who tried to debunk the findings. All 6 are available for observation today if you so wish, I think I have links to all 6 and formal studies of each.

Are we comparing birds to reptiles, then to dinosaurs??? What is the alleged connection?

I don't get your question here? The alleged connection is that it is a transitional animal, some reptilian features some bird features and some others as well.

Snipped claims

I will have to debunk these when I have more time.

information that allegedly supports the theory is presented as fact and irrefutable when in truth the specimens in question are highly questionable.

I see nothing questionable about these SIX specimens, and I posted a thorough debunking of that before.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by this as much fossil evidence of many things is available to us.

No, very little is available when you consider the mass amounts of animals, plants, bacteria, etc. that have lives on this world.

�Fossils all over the world show evidences of rapid burial."

One thing I do know for a fact Walt is a nut, I will post more on this rapid burial nonsense later, I have to finish a project today. I wasn't going to get in to this but since this thread is "Evolution vs. Creation" I do find it fitting, yet a whole other debate, but we have been on many tangents so far, so why stop now

I think the only thing you need to debate global flood is common sense, If the whole planet was immersed in water.... where did it come from? Where did it go? I will get in-depth later.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
oh, i see. you don't have anything to add to the discussion?

okay, then just STFU and go back to your homework...you need to learn a little bit more about political ideology, kiddo.

pot, kettle, black.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
pot, kettle, black.

pot, kettle, black.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
pot, kettle, black.

Don't worry `bout him Zim, he's a sad, vicious, little bugger. He'll be banned if he keeps it up much longer.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Don't worry `bout him Zim, he's a sad, vicious, little bugger. He'll be banned if he keeps it up much longer.

Let's hope so. He's called me a fascist on at least a dozen occasions an is far more obnoxious than me at times. He's an intellectually lazy 30-something'er. I'll give him another chance, but then its over after that.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Don't worry `bout him Zim, he's a sad, vicious, little bugger. He'll be banned if he keeps it up much longer.

okay, 1st of all, enough with the personal attacks. i'm not the one to report people to the mods, but i'm sick of seeing you (and the other 2) derailing threads here in order to reply to my posts.

people shouldn't have to deal with this.

as a matter of fact, you're all going on my ignore list.

sorry mods and others for this. continue thread.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
okay, 1st of all, enough with the personal attacks. i'm not the one to report people to the mods, but i'm sick of seeing you (and the other 2) derailing threads here in order to reply to my posts.

people shouldn't have to deal with this.

as a matter of fact, you're all going on my ignore list.

sorry mods and others for this. continue thread.

One more reply. Then end.

In fact, I've reported you at least 5 times for calling me a fascist. Don't play the holier-than-thou game with me, robby. Anyone who posts in the same thread as I do have seen how you respond.

----End.----

[Sorrry about that, just had to let it out. No more responses.]

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
okay, 1st of all, enough with the personal attacks. i'm not the one to report people to the mods, but i'm sick of seeing you (and the other 2) derailing threads here in order to reply to my posts.

people shouldn't have to deal with this.

as a matter of fact, you're all going on my ignore list.

sorry mods and others for this. continue thread.

Was I talking to you? No, Bucky, I wasn't.

Yes, please put me on your ignore list.


thanks so much. Finis.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
pot, kettle, black.

100% silly.

[ebuddy]

First question is debatable, depends who was in charge of the findings, I will look more in to it. Second question is almost infuriating as we have been over this several times, just because monkeys exist and apes have evolved in a different direction does not negate that we evolved from a common ancestor now does it.

no, no, no-please don't misunderstand me. This was to be taken into context of my very next question; "why not simply deduce this is a unique bird?" The more we learn of arhaeopteryx, the more "birdlike" it becomes. Evolution cannot explain the need for these birds to come from any resemblance of reptile in any way, nor does the fossil record conclusively explain this. Also, the conclusion was that while evolution does not mean linear progression in the strictest sense, it does mean generally linear in a pattern of enhanced complexity. I guess that would have to depend on how 'complex' we believe we are.

It depends on who does the classification and what methods are used, there is no clear divide, I have said this before, if there was a clear cut divide my thought process would lean more towards a creator, since no clear divide is present I find it strong evidence for evolution.

Knowing the number of species in existence and of those that were in existence and those we are still discovering today, I believe it's equally plausible that we are still in the process of collecting data. That is to say, we are trying to draw a conclusion based on the reliance of who does the classification, what methods are used, and exactly how many animals exist in the past and present-which you've admitted is less than absolute. To say, conclusively that one came from another in any way, shape, or form might possibly be pre-mature. The fact there is no clear divide could mean one of two things; either one morphed from another gradually (which again, the fossil record does not generally support), or that we are still ignorant of the total number of varying animals in general. This would not be the first time we've done this, it'll likely not be the last. Why not, for example consider the Penguin, Hoatzin, Ostrich, or the Touraco to be transitional?

One thing I do know for a fact Walt is a nut, I will post more on this rapid burial nonsense later,

Being a 'nut' as you say does not necessarily negate a contribution to science or much of what we know today would be in dire jeopardy. I look forward to the facts.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
"why not simply deduce this is a unique bird?" The more we learn of arhaeopteryx, the more "birdlike" it becomes. Evolution cannot explain the need for these birds to come from any resemblance of reptile in any way, nor does the fossil record conclusively explain this.

It is a unique bird, that does not negate the theory that it is a transitional animal.
I agree there is no conclusive proof of bird from reptile, this is but a small piece in the ever growing puzzle.

Again you are saying there needs to be a "need" for this to develop... there CAN be a need, but one is NOT required. Mutations + Adaptations

Why not, for example consider the Penguin, Hoatzin, Ostrich, or the Touraco to be transitional?

They ARE transitional animals as far as evolution is concerned, we all are, we do not have a crystal ball and cannot, with evolution, predict the future.

Being a 'nut' as you say does not necessarily negate a contribution to science or much of what we know today would be in dire jeopardy.

Agreed

I don't have time now to post any more on the last part, my replies are short as I am short on time.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

[ebuddy]

I find the cartoons regarding both sides to be funny, but only within a sense of irony. The cartoons Zimphire posted are funny because the behaviors you see in them are behaviors we've seen from Christians historically. The behaviors you see in Mikellanes' post are likewise funny because they portray also, the behaviors of those in science desparately wanting to see things their own way.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I find the cartoons regarding both sides to be funny, but only within a sense of irony. The cartoons Zimphire posted are funny because the behaviors you see in them are behaviors we've seen from Christians historically. The behaviors you see in Mikellanes' post are likewise funny because they portray also, the behaviors of those in science desparately wanting to see things their own way.

I think that was the point about Zim's cartoon, People take science too far just as religious do.

My cartoon wasn't trying to be funny. You say trying to see things their own way, do you think Aristotle was trying to push an agenda with the whole round earth thing?

Do you think I am pushing my agenda in my work?

[Showolf]

Of course God created the earth and everything on it... He is the Alpha & Omega (Beginning & end). There's a book called the BIBLE that confirms what I believe also.

[Witness2005]

The Bible does not teach that the Earth is 6000 years old. The Bible referres to four different Earth ages. Three have already occured and one is to come. In the King James version, in Genesis chapter one it reads the Earth was without form and void and the spirit of the Lord moved upon the face of the waters. The Hebrew word for without form is Bohu, it means ruined. And void, in Hebrew is Tohruw, this means made empty due to a Cataclysm. Genesis one in the original Hebrew reads ( The Earth was ruined and made empty). This indicates a cataclysm that ended the first Earth age before the creation of man. Many Theologans speculate that there was another race of Intellegent life here before man, probably Angels, who rebelled later against God and were destroyed by a flood, ( the spirit of the Lord moved upon the face of the water's). The second Earth age existed from Adam and Eve until the second flood of Noah's time. The continets were divided during the time of Peleg ,several centuries after the flood. We are living in the third Earth age. The return of Jesus Christ will user in the fourth and final Earth age.

[xenu]

I quickly read a recent (july 9) New Scientist article that expose ID for the creationist fraud it is.
Good to see they are taking it seriously.

[Planet_EN]

Can anyone tell me how the natural selection always results as a tautology?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by xenu

I quickly read a recent (july 9) New Scientist article that expose ID for the creationist fraud it is.
Good to see they are taking it seriously.

William Dembski took the article seriously and responded as follows;
The July 9th, 2005 issue of the New Scientist is titled “The End of Reason: Intelligent Design’s Ultimate Legacy.” For this issue, I was interviewed at length for the article titled “A Skeptic’s Guide to Intelligent Design” The issue as a whole and the article in particular were disappointing, not because the issue was critical of ID but because it gave such a shallow picture of it. I expected much better, the reason being that on June 20th, 2005 I received the following email from one of the reporters who co-authored “A Skeptic’s Guide to Intelligent Design”:

Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:20:49 -0600
From: Bob Holmes [[email protected]]
Subject: New Scientist reporter would like to talk
To: William Dembski [[email protected]]

Hi–

I’m a Canada-based reporter for New Scientist magazine, an international newsweekly of science and technology. I’m working on an article about intelligent design, and would very much like a chance to talk with you by phone in the next few days. It seems to me the media coverage of intelligent design has mostly failed to present your case on scientific grounds, and I’d like to remedy that.

Would you have some time tomorrow (Tuesday) or Wednesday that we could talk by phone about the evidence (real and potential) for intelligent design, the kinds of observations that could distinguish between Darwinian evolution and intelligent design, and the kinds of observations that might falsify (or refute, if you prefer) the two? Please let me know what time works best for you, and what number I should call you at. My deadline is the end of Thursday, so I’d very much prefer to talk Tuesday or Wednesday.

Thanks for your help.

Cheers,
Bob

Bob Holmes
New Scientist magazine
(780) 989-0974

In this email, I was particularly heartened to read, “It seems to me the media coverage of intelligent design has mostly failed to present your case on scientific grounds, and I’d like to remedy that.” During the phone interview, which lasted well over an hour, Holmes asked good questions and seemed to be tracking at key points in the discussion. For instance, on the question of testability of ID, I remarked that proponents of materialistic evolution invariably invoked as evidence for their theory experiments in which structures of biological interest evolved reproducibly. But for the results of an experiment to be reproducible, they must occur with high probability. Thus, if high probability confirms evolutionary theory, shouldn’t, by parity of reasoning, low probability disconfirm evolutionary theory? If not, the theory is insulated from empirical falsification. I offered as an example the original success of the Miller-Urey experiment in origin-of-life research and the subsequent failure of that origin-of-life research to explain information-rich biomacromolecules. Holmes seemed to “get it” during our interview, but none of this appears in his story.

The article, instead, continues in exactly the same vein as the other media stories against ID that Holmes seemed to want to rectify. In other words, it constitutes media coverage of intelligent design that yet again fails to present our case on scientific grounds. Indeed, all the cliches and stereotypes are there. ID is repeatedly conflated with creationism. Additionally, the designer of ID is claimed to be “supernatural,” when in fact the nature of nature is precisely what’s at issue, and the designer could be perfectly natural provided that nature is understood right. Moreover, no indication is given that ID is now going international and bursting the bounds of evangelical Christianity. And, to close the article, Discovery Institute and the Wedge document are invoked as showing that ID is more politics than science. Finally, to drive home the ridiculousness of ID, the article following this one has a cartoon in which a blackboard displays SCIENCE VS. RELIGION with “Theory of Evolution” appearing in smaller letters under SCIENCE, these being crossed out, and “Intelligent Design” appearing under RELIGION, with the teacher pointing to “Intelligent Design” and asking the class whether the Earth really does go around the sun.

This way of framing the discussion will be enough for most of the New Scientist’s readers to discredit intelligent design. Yet the worst part of the article is that in what little space the article devotes to the actual content of ID, it misrepresents the positive case for ID. Caricatures of our arguments are presented and then followed with refutations by ID critics (refutations that seem decisive because our case was misrepresented in the first instance). No indication is given that ID has developed methods of design detection that are now widely being discussed (see my book The Design Inference). The closest thing here is a reference to the probabilistic hurdle faced in evolving irreducibly complex molecular machines, a hurdle known as the interface compability problem. Holmes and his co-author indicate that this problem has been addressed in two papers by ID proponents, but cites no references (the references are M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664 and my article “Irreducibly Complexity Revisited” at www.designinference.com).

This probabilistic argument is then refuted by Ken Miller, who claims that it commits the “retrospective fallacy.” It doesn’t, since the argument I make for interface compatibility asks for the probability of independently formed/evolved proteins in general sharing interface compatibility and not the probability of two proteins, in retrospect, being interface compatible. I got my Ph.D. in probability theory from the University of Chicago with Patrick Billingsley and did post-docs in probability at MIT with Dan Stroock and at Northwestern University with Mark Pinsky. Miller, to my knowledge, has no formal background in probability theory, and yet the New Scientist is happy to employ him as the expert in probability to refute my probabilistic claims. Holmes could easily have contacted me and asked me whether I thought I was committing a retrospective fallacy and how I would respond to Miller’s criticisms. No such luck.

In the same vein, the article rehearses uncritically the standard refutations of Mike Behe’s irreducible complexity argument. Thus, for instance, readers are told the bacterial flagellum could have evolved because there are simpler flagella than the 40 part flagellum in E. coli (I pointed out that there are such simpler flagella in chapter 5 of my book No Free Lunch and indicated there why this fact didn’t vitiate Behe’s argument). Or, again, readers are told the flagellum could have evolved because it contains a microsyringe (the type three secretory system — TTSS) that could be the object of section pressure and that therefore might have evolved into the flagellum (problem: the best evidence points to the TTSS as devolving from the flagellum; moreover, simply finding a functioning subsystem of an irreducibly complex supersystem still doesn’t answer how that supersystem evolved — see my article “Still Spinning Just Fine”).

In the future, when reporters like Bob Holmes come on to me, urging me that they really want to understand ID to present it fairly, I’m going to give them a reading list and ask them some pertinent questions to make sure that they in fact understand our arguments and the current state of the controversy over ID. The problem in the past has been that I’m asked to educate these people about the very basics of ID, after which, with their deficient understanding of it, they, being themselves ill-disposed toward ID, go to critics to have our arguments shot down. Let them first demonstrate facility with our arguments, go next to the critics to have our arguments shot down, and then come to us to see how we respond to the critics. This seems a better use of our time and a better way of keeping these reporters honest.

This is now the second time in short succession that I’ve been suckered into giving my time to media people whose end product gave no evidence that they needed to speak to me at all. The other case involved a fact-checker for Allen Orr’s piece in the New Yorker, who, despite the numerous items of information I gave him to show that Orr’s criticisms were out-of-date and had been met, incorporated none of this information.

[BRussell]

For those interested, there's a special on the History Channel about human evolution. From Ape to Man, starting Aug. 7.

[xenu]

Poor thing, was he hoping no scientist would critically review ID?
I guess he has never heard of peer review, although the only peers of ID are creationists.

What sort of scientist throws their hands up when they come across something they don't understand, and decide it must be the result of a supernatural being?

Imagine if Einstien threw his hands into the air, decided Weyl tensors were too hard, and gravity must therefore be the work of a supernatural diety.

Science does not work that way. Real science looks for answers, not excuses.

ID is nothing more than creationism dressed up in the Emperors new clothes.

[loki74]

Due to the fact that I do go to a whole lot of forums, I don't know exactly how long a thread must go for it to be considered dead... would this one count? Seems to me its been exumed.

Jesus promised to raise the dead sometime in the future--I believe he meant people, not threads.

To give this post at least some value, I will say this:

It seems to me that Evolution/Macroevolution (not Darwinism or microevolution) are just as much a faith as Creationism. I mean, they already decided that we grew from a single celled organism, into apes, monkeys, etc, and into humans. Now they just need to find (or fabricate) the evidence. Seems to me the opposite of what shows up in the comic above--the "scientists" already had their conclusion, just like the Creationists, and now must find evidence to support it.

PS, and I'm not sure if it is totally approprate to post this here, but there is something about Showolf and Witness2005 I seem to notice:

1) They are both very Christian
2) They joined on the same day
3) They both have no posts outside of the PL.

Now I know that the PL is a huge good place to post with lots of good things to talk about. Wouldnt be surprised if majority of my posts are here. But I think I have (and still do) contribute at least a little in conversation about Macs, and topics related to Macs (ie professional art, design, video, etc). Why are you (guys) here if all you will do is post in the PL? It is a great place to socialize, but I think that one should at least have a handful of posts outside of it. I don't mean to make anything personal and I hope I'm not out of line for saying this (mods?) but it was something I noticed and thought was important to point out.

[xenu]

Originally Posted by loki74

Due to the fact that I do go to a whole lot of forums, I don't know exactly how long a thread must go for it to be considered dead... would this one count? Seems to me its been exumed.

Jesus promised to raise the dead sometime in the future--I believe he meant people, not threads.

To give this post at least some value, I will say this:

It seems to me that Evolution/Macroevolution (not Darwinism or microevolution) are just as much a faith as Creationism. I mean, they already decided that we grew from a single celled organism, into apes, monkeys, etc, and into humans. Now they just need to find (or fabricate) the evidence. Seems to me the opposite of what shows up in the comic above--the "scientists" already had their conclusion, just like the Creationists, and now must find evidence to support it.

PS, and I'm not sure if it is totally approprate to post this here, but there is something about Showolf and Witness2005 I seem to notice:

1) They are both very Christian
2) They joined on the same day
3) They both have no posts outside of the PL.

Now I know that the PL is a huge good place to post with lots of good things to talk about. Wouldnt be surprised if majority of my posts are here. But I think I have (and still do) contribute at least a little in conversation about Macs, and topics related to Macs (ie professional art, design, video, etc). Why are you (guys) here if all you will do is post in the PL? It is a great place to socialize, but I think that one should at least have a handful of posts outside of it. I don't mean to make anything personal and I hope I'm not out of line for saying this (mods?) but it was something I noticed and thought was important to point out.

There is a slight error in your reasoning loki.
Evolution already has evidence. That's where evolution came from. It wasn't thought up one drunken afternoon at the Academy of Science. So there is no need to fabricate anything. Or do you believe there is a world wide conspiracy?

Creationists have a myth and faith.

I noticed the same about Showolf and Witness2005. I would have guessed they would turn out to be Zimphire, but they aren't as annoying, yet. Just amusing.

[loki74]

Hey, I miss Zimphire, he was pretty cool.

lol. Well no I do not believe in any conspiracy, and I do not believe that the evolutionary theories have to truly be in conflict with the Creationist faith. I believe that God created science, why could He have not created evolution? I mean, we do know for a fact that He did create microevoltion--Darwin proved that. (Well this is assuming that you believe in Him... which I do.)

But there is not nearly enough evidence to support Evolution as undeniable fact. And people in the past have fabricated evidence for it. Well at least one... I'm thinking of this guy who fudged drawings of embyos of various species in such a way that suggested Evolutoin... kind of forgot how it worked or what the guy's name was. It would have been a long time ago, though seeing as how they were using sketches and not photographs of the embryos.

PS I am glad I'm not the only one who noticed something fishy about Showolf and Witness. (Which means that I am actualy not crazy!!)

[pman68]

This whole discussion is very sad.

It's 2005.

[xenu]

It must be embarrassing being the presidents scientific adviser.
Just a few snippets ...

"A debate between scientists and religious conservatives has escalated after the US President, George Bush, said the theory of intelligent design should be taught with evolution in public schools."

"The President's conservative Christian supporters and the leading institute advancing intelligent design embraced Mr Bush's comments, while scientists and advocates of the separation of church and state disparaged them.

At the White House, where intelligent design has been discussed in a weekly Bible study group, Mr Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, sought to play down the President's remarks.

Mr Marburger said evolution was the cornerstone of modern biology and intelligent design was not a scientific concept. He said Mr Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean that the President believed intelligent design should be discussed as part of the "social context" in science classes.

Critics say the theory is a thinly disguised argument for God."

"Critics saw Mr Bush's comment that "both sides" should be taught as the most troubling aspect of his remarks. "It sounds like you're being fair, but creationism is a sectarian religious viewpoint," said Susan Spath, a spokeswoman for the National Centre for Science Education. "It's not fair to privilege one religious viewpoint by calling it the other side of evolution."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/pre...748700547.html

[GSixZero]

Here's what I'm wondering...

If evolution is a theory, and some people don't want it taught in schools, that's fine. How is ID any less of a theory?

[BRussell]

WARNING: THE FAINT OF HEART SHOULD READ NO FURTHER IN THIS POST!

There are some scary polls here.

Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not?

Did: 38%, Did not: 54%

So the overwhelming majority of Americans reject evolution.



Another, different poll, just to drive the point home:

Humans evolved without guidance by God: 13%
Humans evolved with guidance by God: 23%
God created humans in our present form: 55%

Americans even rejects God-guided evolution in favor of pure creationism. I don't even think many real "creation science" or "intelligent design" people argue for that.

[smacintush]

There is one true answer to all of this.

Who cares?

Seriously, no matter which side you are on here we will never KNOW where we came from and how we came to be the way we are today. There may be new and better theories but they will ever remain only theories because this just isn't something that can be proven 100%.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Who cares?

It's important because biological evolution is at the core of all the earth and life sciences. If Americans essentially reject science, how are we going to be an educated, competitive country?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

Here's what I'm wondering...

If evolution is a theory, and some people don't want it taught in schools, that's fine. How is ID any less of a theory?

Evolutionary theory is worthless tripe based on data and facts.

Creationism is worthless tripe made up by ignorant zealots.

See the difference?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell

It's important because biological evolution is at the core of all the earth and life sciences. If Americans essentially reject science, how are we going to be an educated, competitive country?

I'm not asking anyone to reject science. I think that the debate between different sides is pointless. How can we or anyone else debate a topic which neither side actually has a friggin' clue?

The evolutionists are terrified of the zealots getting a hold of "The Children™" in our schools and the zealots are terrified that the pagan evolutionists will shake up their good christian beliefs.

It's lunacy from both sides.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I'm not asking anyone to reject science. I think that the debate between different sides is pointless. How can we or anyone else debate a topic which neither side actually has a friggin' clue?

The evolutionists are terrified of the zealots getting a hold of "The Children™" in our schools and the zealots are terrified that the pagan evolutionists will shake up their good christian beliefs.

It's lunacy from both sides.

I'm not saying that you're suggesting we reject science. According to those polls, Americans already have. You asked why we should care - the reason we should care is that as a country we should value science. THe rejection of biological evolution is simply not compatible with that value.

Oh yeah, "both sides" are lunatics. It's all relative, huh? There is no truth, there are just too different "points of view," and they're both extreme. Right.

[sek929]

All scientific evidence aside.

Anyone who believes heavily in that fairytale start of man is an idiot, thats right, a damn idiot.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'm not saying that you're suggesting we reject science. According to those polls, Americans already have. You asked why we should care - the reason we should care is that as a country we should value science. THe rejection of biological evolution is simply not compatible with that value.

I'm not suggesting that we reject evolution either. What I'm trying to say is attaching it to yourself and having any real faith in it's accuracy is folly.

Oh yeah, "both sides" are lunatics. It's all relative, huh? There is no truth, there are just too different "points of view," and they're both extreme. Right.

I think that adamantly defending a position that has not, and likely will never be irrefutably proven is a bit extreme yes.

[Myrkridia]

I agree with what many people have posted regarding not enough options.

Scientists have been looking at the universe (through hubble) and from our current position in the Milky Way it seems as though all the other galaxies are moving away from us.

This is important because if our galaxy is stationary, we would be the "center" of the universe while living in a heliocentric solar system. (They don't want to say anything because of all the hoopla that happened back when the geocentric universe was thought up)

And that is important because if it turns out to be true, then it means the Milky Way is at the original spot of the "Big Bang." You see the after effect of the big bang would be a massive gravity well in space. Now if we are caught in this "well" it would explain why we aren't moving with the rest of the universe and it also means that for us time passes much slower than the rest of the universe because of "Gravitational Time Dilations". So by comparison it is quite possible the Milky Way is only 6,000 years old.