Skip to comments.Dinosaur-Bird Flap Ruffles Feathers
Posted on 10/11/2005 4:07:11 AM PDT by mlc9852
click here to read article
Hang in there newsgatherer. There is a difference between intelligence and education. The education is worthless without intelligence to decipher the wheat from the chaff. Some are so full of their education, that wisdom flies out the window. Wisdom is a wonderful thing, but in all thy wisdom, get understanding. Sound familiar?
Is that DaVinci Code for "stay strong my ignorant brother"?
And you are not? Pulllleeeeaaaassssseeeee. What's really funny is that the one friend that I referred to taught evolution at a large state university. He started looking at the logic behind what he was teaching and was totally embarrassed. He has said so many times that evolutionists have a thought process that they feel is far superior, but is just steeped in ignorance. I won't even go into my credentials, but according to man's standard, the ole IQ is waaaay out there. So please, don't talk down to me, you have no idea who you are talking to. I find your comments quite humorous. Arrogance is very typical of evolutionists. They always resort to trying to convince everyone of their superior intellect and if another scientist disagrees with them, they are deemed dumb.
Can't wait to hear the response to this from those educated beyond their intelligence.
I won't even go into my credentials, but according to man's standard, the ole IQ is waaaay out there. So please, don't talk down to me, you have no idea who you are talking to.
I figured you would recognize it, but I doubt that some others do. I have to laugh. I taught discrete mathematics at an Ivy League school and I am always amazed at the superiority of some when they think that they can yell louder and longer...and that makes them smarter.
Don't remember the guides name, older about 65 or so, proably retired. Kinda thin male. Boston Museum of Science.
But, having been there on more than one occasion, it is not just him, seems they all say the same thing. Kinda like canned ham.
What is there to respond to? You know this guy with credentials and a high IQ who says evolution is ridiculous. I mean, what could possibly trump that? None of the misfits I know could possibly challenge this guy you know. I'll have to talk to this other guy that I know who I think is pretty smart. Maybe he knows some guys who think Creationism is astonishingly stupid.
Is he friends with the short fat guy who gives tours there on Wednesdays? Because I know that guy and he says the old thin guy is a known crackpot.
What physical proof do you possess that this 'book' was written by the finger of God.
Do you possess handwriting samples that we may compare to that of the Almighty's?
IOW, please show proof that the Bible isn't just a well-written novel.
I think you're talking about macroevolution (which is a philosophy of science (religion) because it's not testable/verifiable) -not microevolution - which is verifiable, testable science which occurs every day.
This is the Boston Museum of Science that's located on the Charles River, right?
And approximately when was your last visit when you heard the guides say this sort of stuff? Season of the year and year will be close enough.
Were these paid chartered tours, or the free public tours conducted by the guides who are available daily? Or both?
I know a guy on the street corner, says he used to be Galactus, Eater of Worlds, and he says you are both wrong. You wanna challenge Galactus? Huh?
I thought Archaeopteryx was exposed as a fraud. I found this after a google search: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html
Don't you think this cuts into your credibilty a little bit?
WELL FINALLY! :) No need for a rebuttal, time will tell. Scientists'll get it right eventually!
Did you read the article you linked? The article is about a fraud known as the Archeaoraptor, not Archaeopteryx. Two different things.
Spelling correction: "Archaeoraptor". My keyboard is obviously defective.
There's nothing ironic about it at all. My post is based on the latest evidence and best fits all available research. Feduccia's fringe conclusion is not. As even the "article in question" admits, the theropod dinosaur origins of birds is "the prevailing theory" -- and it got that way because the copious evidence and decades of research has convinced the vast majority of biologists of the correctness of that conclusion. The only significant hold-outs are Feduccia and one other guy (Miller), and they frequently commit widely recognized errors in their methods.
For example, Feduccia has been caught relying on obsolete findings when newer, more complete information has superceded it, and so forth, which is a BIG no-no in science (it's grounds for legitimate considerations of incompetence and/or being dishonestly selective about your facts) so I don't have a lot of confidence in his reliability on that topic.
For one specific, Feduccia keeps harping on the "2-3-4" pattern of bird digits, as if that matter is settled in his favor (and as if it would actually be a major obstacle for bird evolution even if it were). But even the article which started this thread, you'll see that he relies on Hinchcliffe:
But the study's third author, Dr. Richard Hinchliffe -- a recognized expert in vertebrate limb development -- "points out that there are five different assessments showing that the bird hand has the three middle fingers left," the "2-3-4" morphology, Feduccia said.The problem here is that Hinchcliffe's last research paper on this topic was in **1984**, which is ancient history as far as genetics goes. There have been ENORMOUS strides in analytical genetics since then. But Feduccia is still clinging to a twenty-year old study (apparently because he likes its conclusion), while *ignoring* many subsequent findings which use much more reliable analystical methods to find answers to that issue, such as:
The digits of the wing of birds are 1, 2, and 3. A review (J Exp Zoolog B Mol Dev Evol. 2005 May 15;304(3):206-19)Feduccia is either inexcusably careless, or he's picking-and-choosing results based on what he *wants* the results to be, instead of on the latest, most accurate findings. And neither option inspires confidence. There are similar problems with Feduccia's other points which he argues in order to try to support his very minority view on the matter of bird evolution.
Do a Google on Feduccia's name, skip the fawning creationist websites (they love anyone who "bucks the evolutionist party line" no matter how poorly, even when he still espouses Darwinian evolution as Feduccia does), skip Feduccia's own personal pages, and most of what you're left with is pages of folks pointing out Feduccia's many mistakes on the subject.
The problems with The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Discussion of the problems with hypotheses made by Dr. Alan Feduccia in his new book on bird evolution, plus general discussion on the dinosaurian affinities birds.
The Continuing Debate Over Avian Origins (A review of Feduccia's book)
Perhaps you should consider retiring it for a bit....
I have given it all due consideration, and concluded that there is no need to revise my post. It contains no errors, fits all the evidence, and is not contradicted by anyone's findings, not even Feduccia's. If you have any actual evidence to the contrary, feel free to present it.
Huh, "Dr." Hovind? I thought he was in jail for tax evasion. Either that, or riding his pet dinosaurs around his yard.
And by the way, you should never refer to that scoundrel as "Doctor" seeing as though his doctorate was given to him from a diploma mill from a garage. I'm not saying one must be a phd to make a salient point, but I am calling Hovind a despicable liar.
You thought incorrectly.
I found this after a google search: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html Don't you think this cuts into your credibilty a little bit?
No, but it cuts into *yours*, since you're apparently unable to notice something as elementary as the fact that "Archaeoraptor" is not the same thing as "Archaeopteryx". Dyslexic much?
Just for the record, I'm considerably older than Pure Country and no one that I knew ever believed that polio "came out of the ground" it was known to be a contagious virus.
And I took discrete mathematics at an Ivy League school and I'm fairly certain my prof, nor any in the department were YEC's.
I find this particularly amusing since I'm just a few years older than you, and my father was among the first health officers to authorize mass immunizations against polio. Polio is mostly spread by people who don't wash their hands after using the toilet or changing a diaper. I'm sure you will be amused to know that when the oral vaccine came out it was in short supply, but whole families could be immunized by giving one dose to an infant, because the vaccine was contagious in the same way as the disease.
Your recollection of the science of the day is a false memory.
Think of the advantages of holding to this belief. It's easy to remember, saves oodles of time at the library, and can't be disproved.
Just a reg'lar tour de farce.
Your ignorance really showed with that post ;-)
Now you clearly don't understand science, but that doesn't keep you from pontificating on the topic. Why don't you go back to school and understand what it is you're talking about so you can actually be persuasive?
You all become authorities on everything. First, no museum guide would ever say....now you are saying that you know what every scientist and doctor in the country was saying about polio. And no....my recollection is not a false memory. We DID have to stay indoors and not go out. There was a fear in the country of this very thing. So please, don't assume that you can talk for all--I don't care how old you are.
Oh, and my kids say that I am older than dirt...how old does that make you? :)
Are dinosaur fossils the bones of these animals? NO, fossils are mineral deposits that have leached into and taken the place/shape of these bones. The bone material is long gone.
Then a question that begs an answer is, how long does fossilization take? Laboratory experiment have produced fossilized bone in about one year.
What are the prime ingredients in the formation of fossils? Besides the bone and a mineral source, lots of WATER is necessary for fossilization.
One thing most everyone agrees on is, sometime in the past a catastrophic event killed large numbers of prehistoric animals and left a fossil record.
(Now here is where I lose the darwin wingnuts, Heh, Heh)
What BIBLICAL event spoke of large quantities of water and the death of every air breathing animal (except those in an vessel known as the ARK)? In addition the post flood world was radically different than the preflood world. Possibly including volcanoes and over 19K ft mountains where there were none before.
THAT'S RIGHT THE WORLDWIDE BIBLICAL FLOOD CAUSED THE FOSSIL RECORD. THE FLOOD HAPPENED ABOUT 4000 YEARS AGO!
CASE CLOSED. GOD/BIBLE-HOMERUN.....darwin-0
One more interesting thing about the BIBLE, it spoke about arrogant godless people like we see today.
(2 Ti 3:7) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
(2 Ti 4:4) And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
If that isn't enough, the New Testament event where JESUS raised Lazarus from the dead. (John 11:39) Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been [dead] four days. At four days Lazarus was decomposing. NOW FOR YOU darwing nuts, JESUS in picoseconds (no evolution needed) fully restored life into a purifying dead body. So, seems to me JESUS being both GOD and man could easily create the universe in SIX DAYS. He said so in Genesis and I believe him!
(Phl 2:9-11)Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father
PRAISE THE LORD FOR MAKING HIMSELF KNOWN TO THIS UNWORTHY SOUL!
We do when we spend a great deal of time and effort educating ourselves, yes.
First, no museum guide would ever say....
That's right, they wouldn't (not counting the "Creationist Museums", which misrepresent actual science). Newsgatherer was fabricating false stories.
now you are saying that you know what every scientist and doctor in the country was saying about polio.
That's not what he said, try reading it again.
And no....my recollection is not a false memory. We DID have to stay indoors and not go out.
Because Polio is contagious. Duh. When you stay indoors, you avoid other people who may transmit it to you.
There was a fear in the country of this very thing.
Fear of leaving the house when Polio was rampant. Sure. But not for the reason you claimed in your earlier post. Please support your claim that "scientists" within your lifetime stated that "polio comes out of the ground". Feel free to cite any historical book, document, or other contemporaneous account you choose.
I strongly suspect that you're either misremembering, or you (or your mother) had original misheard/misunderstood, doctors using the euphemism of "soil" for "feces". (As in the phrase, "to soil yourself".) This euphemism was even more common half a century ago, which would make it a likely expression back in your youth, when doctors would have (correctly) warned people to avoid "soiled" items (including baby diapers) and other sources of fecal contamination, since that's the primary means by which polio is transmitted.
You or your mother may well have misunderstood a warning about Polio being found in "soil" (i.e. feces) as meaning in "dirt" (i.e. "in the ground").
Or, in areas without modern flush toilets, doctors may indeed have warned (correctly) that the ground and/or groundwater may be contaminated with infected fecal material. If so, this is hardly a good example for you to use to try to ridicule scientists, since that would have been (and still remains) *valid* advice.
Sorry, we lived way out in the country--very far out in the country-- and not much contact with other people. Your comment not applicable.
Your comment about museum personel is absurd. Where is your scientific method in this? You've made an asumption and backed it up with your opinion. You claim to know all there is to know about all in the country. Laughable!
We did have indoor plumbing.
And don't "DUH" me. Your arrogance is amazing. Are you a Democrat?
You're being trolled, big time.
Then feel free to support your claim, as I suggested, by citing any contemporaneous or historical document of any sort which backs up your odd claims about what "scientists" allegedly said about Polio.
It's at least vaguely within the realm of possibility that some moron, somewhere -- perhaps one of your neighbors -- passed along an old wives tale about "polio from the ground" when you were a kid. But you didn't present "polio from the ground" as something you had just heard when you were young, you used it as an alleged example of "scientists" arriving at some absurd conclusion and disseminating it to the public. You were clearly trying to claim that there wasn't just one crackpot somewhere which held such an odd belief, you were claiming that this was a relatively widespread notion among the scientific community, and that they were obviously fools for believing such a stupid thing. If your claim is true, it shouldn't be hard to find records of such a position in journals, or public health advice printed in newspapers, or published announcements to that effect, etc. Go for it.
Lacking that, and given that several of us on this thread are quite familiar with the history of the epidemiology of Polio during this century and yet have not heard of such a notion being conventional wisdom at any time, we're going to have to call BS on your claim.
If you *do* manage to document it, I'll be quite happy to apologize for my skepticism and you can rub my nose in it all you like. That should be sufficient motiviation for you to spend a bit of time hunting for support for your assertion. But remember, showing the existence of an old wives tale to that effect isn't sufficient, you'll have to show that "scientists" were in the habit of giving such advice, since that *was* your original claim.
Your comment about museum personel is absurd.
Would you like to bet money on that? Say, twenty bucks?
Where is your scientific method in this? You've made an asumption and backed it up with your opinion.
I have more than that.
You claim to know all there is to know about all in the country.
No, I don't claim that at all. Stop make false charges against me. I don't *need* to "know all there is to know about all in the country" in order to know that what Newsgatherer claimed he heard museum guides say is entirely implausible on too many points to be even remotely possible. It has the form of the usual "creationist just so" story, made up from nothing but his own false preconceptions about how science "actually" works and how science exhibits "must" be presented. It has all the hallmarks of creationist fantasies about such presentations, and none of the characteristics of real-life museum exhibits or science presentations.
To those of us who *are* intimately acquainted with museums and the science behind the dating of fossils and other artifacts, his account is quite clearly simply made up -- and made up very poorly, due to his ignorance and misconceptions.
It's as clear as the obverse case would be if I were to claim that I had once visited a prominent Catholic church where the priest spoke from the pulpit in blue jeans and had made statements "admitting" that God was a fraud and that the story of King David on the ark with the animals wasn't workable, all while he spread Cheez Whiz on the eucharist wafers...
Anyone who had any *real* experience with Catholic churches and their practices would instantly recognize this as a fabricated piece of nonsense, too flawed on too many levels to even remotely be something that actually happened. And so it is with those of us who actually are quite familiar with museums, fossils, geology, and dating methods. Newsgatherer just made it up. He's lying. His story has far too many holes, of far too preposterous a nature, to be something that actually happened to him, not just once but several times, as he claims.
And don't "DUH" me.
This coming from the guy whose very first words on this thread were, "Give it up Ichneumon, you're sounding like an idiot"?
I'll make you a deal -- stop behaving like, well, yourself, and I'll stop DUHing you.
Your arrogance is amazing.
Good thing *you* haven't been arrogant yourself on this thread. Oh, wait...
Are you a Democrat?
Not at all. I am, however, very knowledgeable on a number of topics, and I don't take too kindly to those who aren't when they just make stuff up or speak complete nonsense in a belligerent manner. As the old saying goes, "better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." Actually, I have no problem at all with people who are not very well versed on a subject. We're all neophytes on various topics. What I *do* take exception to is the people who are extremely unfamiliar with a topic, then use their delusions of competence to lecture, berate, "correct", and ridicule those people who do know the field. You know, like the way creationists who couldn't tell a retrovirus from a retroposon constantly attack the entire field and all professional practitioners of evolutionary biology, along with several other fields of science.
I would put Jessica Alba from Sin City up against me, but the restraining order prohibits it.
But can you calculate the airspeed of a European Swallow carrying a coconut?
Assuming an adult swallow and a mature coconut, of course.....
This memory is correct. Public swimming pools were closed and people were indeed fearful. I don't believe there has ever been a comparable state of fear in this country, not even after 911.
What you lied about was the state of science. I know exactly what scientists were saying because my father was in charge of relaying the scientific position to the people of the state most affected by the polio epidemic.
Science knew what the disease was and how it spread. What they didn't know, prior to Salk, was how to protect children except by self-quarantine.
Polio was also the first epidemic disease of the rich. Most previous epidemics were weighted against the poor. You might remember a wealthy future president who was paralyzed by polio. There are some theories that suggest exactly the opposite of what you have claimed. They claim that poor hygiene (dirt) toughens up a child's immune system and is, in the long run, useful. It was noted that India had no paralytic polio.
Another little known nugget is that the Salk vaccine was a public health failure. Every single person had to have a shot, and everyone had to have a booster shot every year. I personally had four.
This seemed to protect those who got the shots, but it didn't stop the epidemic. The epidemic wasn't stopped until the live vaccine was used, and it worked because, like the disease, it spread itself.
May I suggest that you go back to school and stop by the department that teaches logical thinking and ask them what "Reductio ad absurdam" means? I rarely read these stupid evolution threads, and even more seldom post on them, but I couldn't resist an attempt at humor. Sorry that your belief system is so weak that you can't take a little jab.
Why do evolution proponents immediately get hysterical, go on the attack, and assume that anyone who doesn't believe the official party line is an uneducated dunce? Has science become that Stalinist?
Let me propose a test for you: you create a protocol whereby one species turns into another species - I'm not talking about a minor variation like green birds having blue offspring or slightly different beaks, I'm talking a completely new species - like a reptile into a bird. Then let's take that protocol to several independent labs and have them repeat the experiment under controlled conditions. If your protocol works, I'll start worshipping your god. If it doesn't work, YOU go back to school and learn the difference between "philosophy" and true "science".
It took God a grand total of six 24 hour days to create everything, and everything is pretty cool, but, think about this.
Some 1,973 years ago Jesus said: Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in Me.
In My Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. (John 14:1-3 ACP/KJV)
6 days to make earth, all the heavens, and everything on and in them and it is a pretty cool place.
BUT, Just for a minute try to imagine what our paradise, the mansion that Jesus is now building for us must be like, for He has been working on it for some 1,973 years so far.
I feel bad for the evolutionist, I feel bad for anyone that thinks this earth is worth being called home.
A man much wiser than me said: "For those of us who are truly Born Again Washed in the Blood of the Lamb Christians, this time on earth is the closest we ever come to hell, but for those who are unsaved, this time on earth is their heaven."
Nice distraction with the "worshiping your god" routine. I love theatrical history -- I think this particular joke dates from about 1859.
But before anyone wastes any time trying your proposal, why not show us somewhere in the scientific literature where this is predicted by the Theory of Evolution?
If this sort of thing were demonstrated to have happened, it would disprove the Theory of Evolution.
I have an alternate proposal: How about learning something about the theory you're rejecting before you post again?< /holding breath >
And the Keebler Elves! Cough those up, Mr. Guy! I want the Keebler Elves, singing and dancing the Charleston, and baking those little cookies everyone loves! And I want them to do it all on the back of a unicorn! You produce all that, fella, and THEN maybe I'll think about signing up for your theory!
Just a thought:
Influenza (Italian for influence) was originally thought to be from "bad air"...maybe this is a conflation of ideas. Not by scientists, of course, but possibly, by those who "heard it from" some local "authority" or the other.
As for the museum guide quotes, I find them totally irrelevant to anything.
1.it happened more or less as stated....guide needs more training in not getting enmeshed in disruptive creationist claptrap;
2. it did not happen as stated....we need more practice in early troll alerts.
I wonder about the certainty of the quote: "16.7 -100 million". What seems more likely would be that the 16.7 was 67. Assuming, of course that there was such a statement made at all.
I also wonder about training kids to go to a museum and make fun of the volunteer or low paid guides. What other purpose could there be since they were not going to believe anything they were told?