Sorry, B2P, this will be my last response in this thread.
Hangdawg, I'm going to see about starting a thread regarding your scientific claims about Biology, so please keep your eye out in the "Is it Science" forum.
quote:
Uh herm... one of these eight is a mere feather,
So?
It exists.
quote:
another one is of only the torso and seems to have been a phantom as it only existed in private hands and its whereabouts are unknown,
Which one is that?
quote:
another one's "feathers" were mistaken for a membrane, only a hundred and fifteen years later after intensive re-examination did it become apparent that these were feathers,
Yep, when we have better tools and methods for doing science, and because we are constantly learning more and improving our understanding, we are able to correct mistakes, such as the one you describe above.
So, you agree that this one has feathers?
quote:
another was assumed to be Compsognathus until "preparation" revealed feather traces,
You seem to imply fraud here.
Please provide your evidence for this, or retract and apologize for the baseless accusation and insult.
quote:
another one is described in German so we don't really know much about it.
Do you think that Paleontologists who speak German are somehow incompetant and therefore couldn't possibly identify it correctly?
quote:
To the best of my knowledge only two of the 8 were 'found'
Again, you imply dishonesty or fraud on the part of scientists. Provide evidence for such fraud or retract and apologize for making such a serious charge with no basis.
quote:
with fossilized traces of feathers and these are questionable as they resemble perfectly modern feathers (not intermediary feathers)
Why would they have to be intermediary feathers? The ToE does not predict that they have to be, so why do you think they must be?
Please take a real Biology course, and please familiarize yourself with the basics of Evolutionary Biology. You have a great many misconceptions borne out of ignorance and the disinformation you have accepted uncritically.
Start here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
quote:
and there is a splotch of cement on one of them
Which one?
quote:
and a doublestrike on one (i'm not sure which one).
Why is this significant?
quote:
Only one of them has a clear Furcula, but it is not shaped like a typical breast bone and has one end chipped off and does not fit into the indentation of the slab removed from.
Please explain, in detail, why these are problems.
Also, please provide the source for your information.
quote:
I read all of it. It is filled with dubious "reported" and "claimed" facts.
No, it is filled with no fewer than
forty nine references to the professional peer-reviewed academic literature.
Again, you seem to be implying that we have some reason to suspect fraud. Please support this serious accusation with evidence or retract and apologize.
To do this is highly offensive and terribly dishonest of you.
quote:
And contains some very defeating information.
Such as?
quote:
It gives a list of characteristics Archae has in common with birds and dinosaurs. Not one feature except the feathers (which are only clearly found in two specimens and are of dubious origin)
Feathers are found on more than two specimins. Just because you deny them out of bias and ignorance doesn't mean you know better than thousands of professional scientists.
Again, you imply that there is something "dubious" about the origin of the feather impressions.
Please explain and provide evidence, in detail, what is "dubious" about the feather imprints, or retract the claim and apologize.
quote:
could not be accounted for by a variation of a small dinosaur similar to Compsognathus.
Please explain the reasoning here, in detail.
quote:
The only solely birdlike feature that Archae has is the dubious feathers which are only "found" in a couple.
Dinosaurs do not have wishbones.
Dinosaurs necks attach to their heads in the back of the skull, not the bottom like in birds.
Dinosaurs do not have backward facing thumbs.
Are you saying that no species shares any characteristics with any other species, and never has?
quote:
No of course not.
OK, good.
But why do you say this?:
quote:
There are no half fish half amphibians. There are no halves of anything.
But we have many, many fossils of transitional forms. I'm not sure what you mean when you use unscientific terms such as "half fish, half amphibian". If you want to know if we have fossils of creatures that show both fish and amphibian characteristics, the answer is yes.
And many more. Enjoy:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Also, why didn't you answer my questions about the transitional features we humans possess?
Tell me, why do we have a tailbone? Why do we have very fine hairs all over our bodies that stand up when we are cold, even though they cannot trap air to insulate us? Tell me, why do we share a broken gene with other primates that keep us from producing Vitamin C?
Now, when you come back to the new thread with your objections to this link, please be prepared to discuss specifics, and please do not imply that all the scientists are liars or some other lame tactic.
Fossilization is very rare, and fossilization of land mammals is much rarer than marine organisms,
quote:
I know I know... I know how fossilization occurs. That does not explain why we find hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of dinosaur fossils as well as bird fossils, but all we can come up with for Birdosaurs is a couple of Archae like apparitions.
I already told you. Yes, we have "hundreds and hundreds" of dinosaur fossils and bird fossils, but we do not have "hundreds and hundreds" of
extremely specific fossils of species showing extremely specific characteristics.
quote:
If this is the greatest example of an intermediary fossil Evos can come up with, your theory is doomed.
Read the link above. There are thousands of examples of transitional fossils.
[qs]Why not try reading some actual Biologist's work, like Gould, instead of the work of people with a religious agenda?[/quote]
quote:
I read a little here and there. I read through the chapters on evolution in my friend's college biology textbook. I read some talkorigins articles for flavor and to stay sober. And what do you think I'm doing here? I love it when people like you point me to sites where I can see the evidence for myself.
I think you need to do some more and more honest study, because you still have a great many misconceptions and wrong ideas about Biology and the evidence for the ToE.
quote:
You just told me I can't really be a scientist unless I'm an evolutionist.
No, I didn't and stop misrepresenting what I said.
I'll explain it to you again.
The scientific method used by Evolutionary Biologists is the same method used by any other scientific discipline. If you reject Evolution, then you must reject all other science if you are to remain consistent.
If you do not reject all other science but do reject the findings of Evolutionary Biology, then you are rejecting is based not upon rational argument but upon religious, and therefore nonrational and non falsifiable, grounds. That is, you are holding the ToE to a different standard than any other scientific field, and that is unscientific.
There's only one scientific method, hangdawg, which is why people of all creeds and philosophies can do it and come to consensus.
If the only people rejecting the ToE are people who share your religious bent, shouldn't that be telling you something about how well they are following the rules of science?
quote:
If the people that write the literature you read feel the same way, don't ya think they MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIASED TOO!?!?
The literature I read is based upon the professional peer-reviewed scientific literature, which, along with borne-out predictions and the process of outside replication, largely corrects for personal bias.
In case you are not familiar with the stringent process of peer-review, here is a link to an overview:
Peer-review - definition of Peer-review by The Free Dictionary
quote:
As to his other points which he gathers from articles written by other authors, they are merely speculation on the sudden emergence of life and do not appear to be founded on evidence.
Excuse me?
The 26 references listed at the bottom of the essay are almost entirely primary sources. That is, they are almost all peer-reviewed journal articles from the professional scientific literature.
All of those references are
references to the evidence, the actual research, so how could they not be "founded upon the evidence"? they ARE the evidence!
Define "kind".
quote:
Thats hard to do as the taxonomy is still changing as we learn about the genetic code, but I guess its somewhere between a class and genus.
It's "hard"?
You "guess"?
What kind of vague, squishy science do you people pretend to do?
If you don't have a real definition of "kind", even after 50 years of using the term, then how on earth do you get off making any kind of claims regarding what can or cannot happen to a "kind"?
quote:
When I have really dug into a subject of evolution, the evidence and claims have been unimpressive, like Archae.
Hahahaha.
Above, you said that you have only read work on Biology written by Biologists "a little here and there", but now you claim that you have "really dug into the subject".
Tell me, if you wanted to really learn about the workings of the internal combustion engine, would you seek out a book written on the subject by, say, a ballet instructor who has little to no professional experience or advanced training on the subject, or would you consider a book written by a professional auto mechanic with decades of experience who also has a advanced degree from MIT in mechanical engineering to be more likely to give you an expert overview?
quote:
I think it is evolutionists who are the brainwashed ones. Certainly many Creationists are too. There's no excuse for intellectual laziness, which I admit I'm guilty of. But evolutionists are utterly repulsed by the idea of simply challenging their theory and considering other more sensical ways the evidence might be viewed.
The thing is, the predictions of the ToE have been borne out over time.
The predictions of Creationism have not been borne out. In fact, they have failed every time when held up against the evidence found in nature. that is because Creationism dictates that nature must resemble a certain interpretation of the Christian Bible. This conclusion is reached before any evidence is gathered from the natural world, so it is unscientific right off the bat.
The ToE, by contrast, is
evidence-driven; that is, the evidence strongly suggests that common descent with modification is the way life changes andhas always changed since it first emerged.
™ Version 4.2
