12 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThe first site proves that birds are different from reptiles. You're right; that utterly disproves that birds could have evolved from extinct reptiles hundreds of millions of years ago. Case closed, Sherlock.
Well, I agree with you that fossils are probably millions of years old, but the site still offers good information. What about the other site? If you rejected science because of one bad claim you couldn’t be a scientist could you?
Anyway, you’re the one who brought the scripture into this, and I have shown how you’re interpretation could be wrong.
12 Jan 06
There's a fairly long article on Archaeopteryx showing the many differences between it and modern birds and its similarities to reptiles. It states:
It can be seen that Archae possesses many more characters which are present in dinosaurs and not in birds, than it does characters which are present in birds but not in dinosaurs. This is why Archae is a true transitional species, because it shares some characters which are diagnostic of one group whilst still retaining characters diagnostic of its ancestral group. Anyone who claims that Archae is 100% bird is wrong. Anyone who claims that Archae's skeleton is even predominantly bird- like is wrong. Anyone who claims Archae has a "totally birdlike" skull is wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#avian-features
Both of CE's quoted sites ignore virtually all the similarities between Archaeopteryx and reptiles and make the claims that are stated to be "wrong" based on the fossil evidence of Archae's charcteristics in comparison to reptiles and birds.
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI made a hat out of a Quetzal .........
I'm interested in what you all make of the quetzal:
"Baby Resplendent Quetzals feature vestigial claws (like archæopteryx and pterosaurs) on the "wrist". These claws are lost as the bird matures." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzal)
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderMost of the references on the link you gave are outdated. New discoveries have been made since then as the following links show.
There's a fairly long article on Archaeopteryx showing the many differences between it and modern birds and its similarities to reptiles. It states:
It can be seen that Archae possesses many more characters which are present in dinosaurs and not in birds, than it does characters which are present in birds but not in dinosaurs. This is why Archa ...[text shortened]... d on the fossil evidence of Archae's charcteristics in comparison to reptiles and birds.
http://www.creationofman.net/chapter4/chapter4_12.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_08.html
The rest of these links just go to show that the question is still open.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/eldredge.asp
http://www.grisda.org/origins/51031.htm
12 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThe crap you rely on is pathetic. First, the references on the talkorigins site have been updated to 2002; I don't see any more recent discovieries in your sites. The first one says this idiocy:
Most of the references on the link you gave are outdated. New discoveries have been made since then as the following links show.
http://www.creationofman.net/chapter4/chapter4_12.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_08.html
The rest of these links just go to show that the question is still open.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/eldredge.asp
http://www.grisda.org/origins/51031.htm
Since they were in a transitory period, they had to be crippled, deficient, and defective living beings.
No, they don't as anyone with a junior high school biology course would tell you. From what I can tell the "discovery" it's talking about is Protavis which is discussed on the talkorigins site. I can't say for sure since it fails to actually discuss any details. As talkorigins mentions, even if their were earlier forms of birdlike creatures than Archae this doesn't prove that birds didn't evolve from reptiles; it has not been claimed that Archae is the descendant of all birds.
I'll suffer through the others and report back.
EDIT: The second site discusses mid 1990's discoveries, some of which are also mentioned on talkorigins. It also shares the misconception that "evolutionists" claim that Archae is the ancestor of all birds. Wrong.
12 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess Express3rd site a book review making the same comical error as above:
Most of the references on the link you gave are outdated. New discoveries have been made since then as the following links show.
http://www.creationofman.net/chapter4/chapter4_12.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_08.html
The rest of these links just go to show that the question is still open.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/eldredge.asp
http://www.grisda.org/origins/51031.htm
The issue is clear: it is not why Archaeopteryx contains a mixture of reptilian and avian traits, but why, if reptile-to-bird evolution is true, we do not find a graded series of part-wing/part-leg creatures (successively less leglike and successively more winglike) to gradationally bridge the two orders.
Sorry, animals come in entire, evolved forms not with "half-leg, half-wings".
EDIT: The fourth site gives a very brief summary of some scholarly articles. The comment is:
Dinosaurs and birds share several similarities which have been used to argue for their evolutionary linkage. However, significant differences are also known, which may be used to argue against their evolutionary linkage. Although the supposed evolutionary relationship of dinosaurs and birds is strongly promoted by some, many find the scientific obstacles too great to accept this hypothesis.
Note that this is merely saying that it is possible that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, NOT that they didn't evolve from reptiles. I also note that the articles referenced were written in 1999, 3 years before the talkorigins updating of their references. I don't doubt that there are serious scientists who say that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, but none would say that birds existed on Earth before land animals as a literal reading of Genesis would lead one to conclude.
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSorry, animals come in entire, evolved forms not with "half-leg, half-wings".
3rd site a book review making the same comical error as above:
The issue is clear: it is not why Archaeopteryx contains a mixture of reptilian and avian traits, but why, if reptile-to-bird evolution is true, we do not find a graded series of part-wing/part-leg creatures (successively less leglike and successively more winglike) to gradationally ...[text shortened]... ers.
Sorry, animals come in entire, evolved forms not with "half-leg, half-wings".
This is the creationist's position. Get back to your own side.
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThe link uses credible sources, unless you don’t think the New York Times is credible. The last link that I cite lists plenty of crappy idiocies made by evolutionists.
The crap you rely on is pathetic. First, the references on the talkorigins site have been updated to 2002; I don't see any more recent discovieries in your sites. The first one says this idiocy:
Since they were in a transitory period, they had to be crippled, deficient, and defective living beings.
No, they don't as anyone with a ju ...[text shortened]... nception that "evolutionists" claim that Archae is the ancestor of all birds. Wrong.
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI can't help it if you don't understand evolution. And I didn't know it was the "creationist's position" that "animals come in entire, EVOLVED forms" as I stated. The error that transitory forms are all deformed, crippled monsters with half appendages of different types is, for lack of a better term, stupid.
[b]Sorry, animals come in entire, evolved forms not with "half-leg, half-wings".
This is the creationist's position. Get back to your own side.[/b]
12 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou claim that I don’t know evolution and you say "animals come in entirely, EVOLVED forms" 😀😵😲🙄
I can't help it if you don't understand evolution. And I didn't know it was the "creationist's position" that "animals come in entire, EVOLVED forms" as I stated. The error that transitory forms are all deformed, crippled monsters with half appendages of different types is, for lack of a better term, stupid.
There is no such thing as an entirely evolved form to an evolutionist! Everything is constantly evolving! Eeesh...get your science straight and come back in a few years...
12 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressYou're in error yet again. Everything isn't necessarily evolving; most species die out entirely. And an evolved form is just that; one that has evolved from other forms. Is there anything you can get right?
You claim that I don’t know evolution and you say "animals come in entirely, EVOLVED forms" 😀😵😲🙄
There is no such thing as an entirely evolved form to an evolutionist! Everything is constantly evolving! Eeesh...get your science straight and come back in a few years...
And when you're quoting, don't cut off half the sentence - it's dishonest.
"animals come in entire, evolved forms not with "half-leg, half-wings".
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressHey, I was told to look at scripture. So I did. And it turned out to be full of factual falsehoods (just to make it easy, let's call them lies). You say 'my interpretation could be wrong'. The difference between creationist's assertions and scientist's opinions, is that scientist's opinions are based on multiple lines of physical evidence. It is the agreement between multiple independant sources that gives strength to science, and it is the lack of consistancy and its reliance on smoke and mirrors that detracts credibility from creationism.
Well, I agree with you that fossils are probably millions of years old, but the site still offers good information. What about the other site? If you rejected science because of one bad claim you couldn’t be a scientist could you?
Anyway, you’re the one who brought the scripture into this, and I have shown how you’re interpretation could be wrong.
What about the other site? Saw one creationist site, seen them all. The lies and "evidence" are the same, just the crooked words and the crooked people who bandy them about change.
CE, you seem a sensible bloke in so many ways. It pains me to see a smart guy reduced to bowing and scraping not to a god, but to the people who lie to you and then tell you to trust them. Pick yourself up, raise your eyes, don't feel so compelled to be ashamed to be yourself. Be proud. Question everything. Cast off the shackles of religion. The worst evolutionary adaption that man ever got was the ability to bend at the knees.
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThey're not lies. They're consistent with the state of knowledge at the time they were written. The funny thing is, we don't really know what people knew then or how they applied their knowledge. Our knowledge of astrology, for example, lags woefully behind that of the Sumerians...
Hey, I was told to look at scripture. So I did. And it turned out to be full of factual falsehoods (just to make it easy, let's call them lies).