Evolutionism's appeal to junk science

[UTEOTW]

"AS it turns out - species have not evolved much since 1947. (I am sure that comes as a big surprise to evolutionists)."

Well, no, not much of a surprise. But given the incredible rate of evolution to get from "master kinds" to our current species, it should come as a great surprice to YEers.

The point is not that species have evolved in the last 60 years it is that we have discovered many new fossils in the mean time. Like those more birdlike and more reptilelike creatures I gave you relative to archy.

"His point is that the FULLY MATURE BIRD features of Archaeopteryx make it USELESS as a link."

But there in lies the rub. It has some features like extant birds, it has some features similar to birds but more primitive, it has some features partway betwenn birds and reptiles and it has some decidedly reptile only traits.

 

[Gina B]

Time to wrap it up guys.
BTW, I usually put these conversations into the CvE archives fairly soon after closing them so they don't get lost in the regular archives later, in case people wonder where they disappear to.

Gina

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Well, Gina, you're practically becoming the default editor of the CvE type discussions anyway - why not just volunteer to be the editor of that forum and bring it back?

 

[The Galatian]

Another impassable gap between birds and reptiles is feathers, which are peculiar to birds. Reptile bodies are covered with scales, a completely different structure. The hypothesis that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales is completely unfounded, and is indeed disproved by the fossil record, as the evolutionist paleontologist Barbara Stahl once admitted:

Bob, are you aware it is considered plagarism to copy verbatim the writing of other people, and present it as though you wrote it yourself?

That being said, let's look at the rest of this, which you did attribute to others...

"How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. (Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985, pp. 349-350.)"

The claim, which is only 25(!)years old, is a bit behind the times. Turns out that the biochemical and structural and developmental relationships between feathers and scales and scutes is a bit more involved than you might believe:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm

(research on inhibiting specific genes in birds makes scutes (scales found in birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs) form feathers)

"In all cases where a chick was infected with the inhibitor virus at days 15-18 of development, at least some of the scutes developed into feathers. The feather development ranged from thickening of the edge of the scute, to short, fat feathers, to long, thin feather filaments (see figures at left and right; click on the images to see larger hi-res picture). These feathers contained the barbs characteristic of normal feathers, although the barbs were more numerous. The scutellae (scales similar to scutes -Barbarian's comment) also developed into feathers to various degrees."

As Alan Feduccia, one of the leading ornithologists in the world, has stated,

"Most recent workers who have studied various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx have found the creature to be much more birdlike than previously imagined," and "the resemblance of Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated." (Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 81)(It should be noted that Feduccia is not even supported by most ornithologists in these claims. Fedducia thinks birds evolved from thecodonts, the reptiles from which dinosaurs evolved.)

Another problem regarding Archaeopteryx is that the theropod dinosaurs, which many evolutionists suggest were Archaeopteryx' ancestors, actually emerge after it in the fossil record, not before it. This, of course, leaves no room for any "evolutionary family tree" to account for the origin of birds.

Eoraptor, the earliest known theropod dinosaur, lived about 228 million years ago. Archaeopteryx lived about 150 million years ago. Oops.

(Feduccia doubts avian skull of Archaeopteryx)

Odd. The skull of Archaeopteryx has the following features:

"Dorsal process of maxilla almost reaches preorbital bar
Preorbital bar slender & straight preorbital in lateral view
Dorsal depression on the ectopterygoid
Diamond shaped supraoccipital
Strongly twisted paraoccipital process (noted by Currie)"

Transitional? Yep.

Here's another thing to keep in mind:
Not long ago, a Tyrranosaurus rex skeleton was located, in which a bit of hemoglobin was still intact in the bones.

When injected into a rabbit, anitbodies were formed against it. These reacted most strongly against the hemoglobin of a bird, not reptiles.

How about that...

 

[UTEOTW]

"While UTEOTW gets HIS OWN SIDEPOINT that the quote is from 1947 he does not ACTUALLY respond to anything IN the quote."

Nope. The quote says that it cannot be a transitional without some links between the proposed transition and the basal and descendent groups. So I gave you some intermediates to each side. I think that is a direct response and not a "SIDEPOINT."

"What a perfect "dodge". The conference on Archaopteryx NEVER argued that SINCE they refused to recognize transitional classifications they would simply DECLARE all transitionals BETWEEN TRUE A and TRUE C to be EITHER TRUE A or TRUE C -- never TRUE B."

I believe that I have provided evidence that the conference participants thought it to be a transisitional. I have prodded you to support your claim by providing us evidence that the participants actually argued that it was not any form of transisitonal. That you have steadfastly refused to do so tells me that you cannot because you have no evidencethat they said any such thing.

"Wrong. ANY finding of a REAL transition LINK BETWEEN A and C would NOT simply be INJECTED into one or the other category BECAUSE a new "intermediate" categor is "not allowed". That is just silly."

It may be silly, but that is how the Linnean system works. If you have a problem with that, why don't you overturn it and start the Bob system of taxonomy. I give the relevent quote again.

The practicing paleontologist is obliged to place any newly found fossil in the Linnean system of taxonomy. Thus, if one finds a birdlike reptile or a reptilelike bird (such as Archaeopteryx), there is no procedure in the taxonomic system for labeling and classifying this as an intermediate between the two classes Aves and Reptilia. Rather, the practicing paleontologist must decide to place his fossil in one category or the other. The impossibility of officially recognising transitionary forms produces an artificial dichotomy between biologic groups. It is conventional to classify Archaeopteryx as a bird. I have no doubt, however, that if it were permissible under the rules of taxonomy to put Archaeopteryx in some sort of category intermediate between birds and reptiles that we would indeed do that.
- Raup, D. M. 1983. The geological and paleontological arguments of creationism. p. 147-162. In: Godfrey, L. R. (ed), Scientist Confront Creationism. Norton & Co, New York.

"The supposed list of characteristics making it a UNIQUE BIRD - include teeth - which MODERN birds have and are NOT declared to be "TRUE BIRDS that are really LINKS BETWEEN Bird and reptile" but are only called true birds "because we have no other place for them".

That is just a fairytale UTEOTW is spinning for his entertainment. "

Not a fairy tale. A rather effective dissection of your position.

I gave you references to over 100 characteristics that archy shares with the reptiles but not other birds.

Don't you think a bird really ought to have a beak?

"Too late - already DID dig in and already FOUND the quote showing that TRUE A is not a link BETWEEN TRUE A and TRUE C and neither is TRUE C a LINK between TRUE A and TRUE C."

Give me an accurate set of facts to show this, please. Even an in context quote. I'd be very happy to see you support your assertion about the conference by showing it to be true rather than asserting the same false claims over and over.

"You keep saying in effect "Well that was true in 1947 but not any more" AS IF that was an enlightened response."

Nope, I keep pointing out that you use ancient quotes where the situation has changed in the mean time. This particular ancient quote through doubt on archy as a transitional because of a lack of other intermediates. I have now provided you with those intermediates to show you that the quote is no longer valid.

 

[UTEOTW]

The Galatian handled your bit about feathers rather well. You see, we do now have both fossil and biochemical evidence for the evolution of feathers. But I want to deal with your Feduccia quote. All I want to do is point out the following quote from him, since you are quoting him.

The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Well, Gina, you're practically becoming the default editor of the CvE type discussions anyway - why not just volunteer to be the editor of that forum and bring it back?

Hear! Hear!

You have been doing a very good job. You let us play but we can always tell you are paying attention.

 

[Gina B]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Well, Gina, you're practically becoming the default editor of the CvE type discussions anyway - why not just volunteer to be the editor of that forum and bring it back?

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

However, I'd not make the best choice as my knowledge on the topic is extremely limited, it's a Baptist board and I don't hold to the typical Baptist viewpoint of creationism, and I'm already ignoring a science forum I asked for on another board.
Gina

 

[BobRyan]

All,

Here is another fascinating Web site quoting atheist evolutionists about the failed attempts of evolution to foist archaeopteryx on to the public as a TRUE BIRD that is a transition BETWEEN reptiles and TRUE Birds.

http://www.harunyahya.com/70myth_bird_evolution_sci33.html

You know - claiming that TRUE C is a intermediate BETWTEEN true A and TRUE C.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

Yet another cut and paste. At least this time it was just a URL. I did not know that you had Islamic leanings. Surprising.

This is all stuff that has been hashed before. THis page makes the most of some misrepresentations (imagine that) and the controversy of Feduccia. For instance it claims that "There are various structural differences between birds and reptiles, one of which concerns bone structure. Due to their bulky natures, dinosaurs-the ancestors of birds according to evolutionists-had thick, solid bones. Birds, in contrast, whether living or extinct, have hollow bones that are very light, as they must be in order for flight to take place." He is taking the bulk of the dinosaurs which did have thicker bones and ignoring the theropods which had some very birdlike bones.

He goes through the lung thing, which has also been parsed here this year. I believe it was shown that there is evidence for the lungs evolving, Denton not withstanding.

But finally Feduccia. YEers like to quote Gould and Elderidge alot. Why is this? Because they are pushing something new, PE, and as such have it in their interest to show what they believe are shortcomings in gradualism. This allows the practiced YEer to butcher their quotes about how the fossil record shows a lot of PE and less gradualism until it sounds like they are saying that evolution does not work at all. We have seen many examples of that on this thread usingthose two individuals and Simpson, since he, too, was one who bagan the push away from gradualism.

By the same token, much is made of Feduccia by YEers. He holds the minority opinion that birds did not evolve from theropod dinosaurs. This is a minority opinion but it makes for great fodder for those seeking to discredit the bird series. The first thing to take note of, however, is my quote from Feduccia above where he calls Archaeopteryx "the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms." SO you have to be careful attributing too much glee when you start quoting him. But his minority opinion is that birds and their theropod relatives share the same common ancestor. [sarcasm]What a huge difference.[/sarcasm] Instead of being the same thing, they are brothers. This would push back the origin of birds a bit but what still show why Archaeopteryx and the other bird intermediates share so many feature with the theropods. The origin of birds is still from the dinos or at least some proto-dino depending on just how the evolution took place. YEers always leave this part out when talking of Feduccia. They use his controversy but ignore the truth of what he says and about how it is not that far from what others say. It is very instructive and another example of the legnths that YEers will go to.

 

[UTEOTW]

Well to summarize this thread.

Bob wished to start a thread to show the "junk" science of evolutionism. Instead, he was in for a bit of a surprise. I took the opportunity to make the most of the misrepresentation that YEers do in support of their cause. Some of the things brought up. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/15.html#000224 It was enough that there was even some mild condemnation by other YEers, quite unusual. They usually just circle the wagons.

There was very little, if any, attempt to even justify the things I brought up. Because there is no excuse. And I did not just hit the fringe. I went after the leading claims by the leading people.

As if he was trying to further my cause, Bob then got hung up a few topics. Entropy, birds and horses. He gave my first hand example for us of quote mining and misrepresenting scientists. Since he kept repeating the flase claims, it allowed us to really paint his position into a corner. He did not seem to notice and wlaked all over the wet paint, but I am sure it is obvious now to any one who has read the thread what legnth a YEers will go to and what they are willing to ignore. Constant requests to supply data to support what we called false allegations were repeated ad nauseum without ever giving support.

Overall this thread turned into a very good example of the "junk" that passes for YE "science." Both in the examples brought in and in the actual dicsussion.

 

[The Galatian]

Here is another fascinating Web site quoting atheist evolutionists about the failed attempts of evolution to foist archaeopteryx on to the public as a TRUE BIRD that is a transition BETWEEN reptiles and TRUE Birds.

This is the site from which you plagarized some of your earlier posts. Did you know that it's a Islamic board?

And did you know, Bob, that the first couple of Archaeopteryx fossils (without preserved traces of feathers) were classified as reptiles?

What does that tell you?

Do us a favor, and pick out another of the objections from that site that you think is valid, so we can talk about it here.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Here is another fascinating Web site quoting atheist evolutionists about the failed attempts of evolution to foist archaeopteryx on to the public as a TRUE BIRD that is a transition BETWEEN reptiles and TRUE Birds.

This is the site from which you plagarized some of your earlier posts. Did you know that it's a Islamic board?

And did you know, Bob, that the first couple of Archaeopteryx fossils (without preserved traces of feathers) were classified as reptiles?

What does that tell you?

Do us a favor, and pick out another of the objections from that site that you think is valid, so we can talk about it here. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes he does.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/18.html#000263

"As far as Archaeopteryx goes, it is all instructive to know that one of the six known fossils, the Solnhofen specimen, was initially identified as the dinosaur Compsognathus! Amazing, don't you think, that a creature that you claim is nothing but a unique bird was first identified as a dinosaur when the feathers were not well enough preserved to show otherwise. Without the feathers, they first thought it was nothing more than a small dinosaur!"

But he never lets an inconvenient fact get in the way of a good story.

 

[BobRyan]

There are a number of "facts" evolutionists must ignore in science to cling to their belief systems. (As has already been pointed).

#1.When clinging to the "belief" in agiobenesis they must ignore the "fact" that no pre-cell protein building experiments support the mono-chiral distribution NEEDED in real science today to form a living cell NOR do they support the evolutionist dream that living cells can be made of racemized chiral orientations -- so not letting inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story "they just make it up" as UETOTW did in his fact-challenged replies where even HE admits he "has nothing" to go on.

#2. When clinging to the "belief" that evolutionism can ignore its failure at the abiogenesis level - our evolutionists here seek to "ignore" Dawkings statement that evolution CLAIMS to describe every aspect of living cells "starting from nothing". UTEOTW has sought to "misdirect" the conversation away from that salient point in Dawkings response.

#3. In clinging to the "Belief" that they can marry evolutionism to God's Word AS IF Genesis is in fact some lesser form of evolutionism - they ignore "the fact" that for atheists Evolutionism is the ONLY Option. Both atheists and evolutionists are on record as seeing the FLAWS in this poorly construed marriage between evolutionism and God's Word -- starting with DARWIN himself and going on to Dawkings. Again the fact-challenged position of evolutionists here -- was exposed. But still evolutionism's devotees cling to their myths by not letting inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story

#4. In clinging to the "belief" that the horse series "had merrit" evolutionists here ignore OTHER EVOLUTIONISTS (even ATHEISTS) admitting that "IT NEVER EXISTED" and SHOWING that the smooth transitions SEEN in that sequence - never happened. (I.E. what they were SHOWING was contrived - rather than factual support). They themselves list this as a positive embarrassment.

But evolutionists here are undaunted by that since they never let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story

#5. In clinging to the "belief" that TRUE C is in fact the INTERMEDIATE-B between TRUE A and TRUE C - they ignore the fact that Archaeopteryx IS declared to be TRUE C and NOT intermediate-B. Then they circle back and claim "we always show TRUE C as the INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN any A and any C INSTEAD of actually coming up with a verifiable B".

How sad that it would come to such a factual void for evolutionism - yet they persist because they don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story.

Once evolutionists THEMSELVES admitted that Arhaeopteryx IS A TRUE BIRD of FLIGHT with REAL feathers - flight wings, in fact -- a perching bird.. the "jig was up" and as we see from the EVOLUTIONISTS quotes starting with NUOY and going onward - it is NO LINK at all. Rather it is a UNIQUE bird with quotes from evolutionist (given here) showing that they see this as one of the biggest embarrassments for evolutionism in recent times.

#6. And of course when clinging to the "belief" that we SEE MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy in local systems - evolutionists IGNORE their own ATHEIST EVOLUTIONIST - Isaac Asimov where HE points out that we SEE local INCREASE in entropy NOT local DECREASE (while at the same time ADMITTING that eovlutionism NEEDS to see MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy in that local system).

Not letting inconvenient facts get in the way of a good storyevolutionists here fly-every-direction trying to escape that embarrassing fact. Everything from "explain what Asimov said to me" -- to "Asimov was wrong" to "well Asimov was STILL an atheist so that must prove something" to "Asomv explained that with the sun shining we SHOULD have some HOPE of ever seeing the long hoped for MASSIVE DECREASE"...

But all those fact-challenged dodges - would not be compelling to to the objective mind using critical thinking to evaluate such fact-devoid responses.

#7. Finally - in evolutionist quote after evolutionist quote given here -- The CREATIONISTS show a level of OBJECTIVITY in debate that the evolutionists here utterly fail to master. Evolutionist respond by attacking the objectivity they can not master. For in all this evolutionist find NOT ONE such quote to offer FROM creationist scientists. (Though I have had quotes presented here from PHDs in Chemistry and one from a PHD in Physics that are both Creationists and known to me on a first name basis).

(And of course evolutinists repsond with the claim the the Bible makes creationists too stupid to understand science - or it makes Christians "political" or some nonsense similar to that).

Here again - a wonderful fact to relay to our students -- as they observe the vaccuous responses and attempts at misdirection displayed by the evolutionists on this thread. Very useful indeed!

The other non-response we have seen from evolutionists is the curious posts SHOWING how atheists HATE to be quoted by Christians in support of God's Word. This comes as a huge surprise to the evolutionists AS IF it proves that this OBJECTIVE approach of finding confessions of failure coming from THE OTHER SIDE - should never be used.

What they "pretend" not to see is that Creationists DON'T CLAIM that atheist evolutionists are NOT atheist, or that they are not clinging to "Belief evolutionism ANYWAY".

(An "obvious" point -- but "again" debates with evolutionists are comprised of attempts to get them to "admit to the obvious".)

The whole point is to find some key salient point WITHIN the argument that "reveals" a bold and blatant "appeal to junk science". Asimov ADMITTING that he NEEDS MASSIVE decrease in entropy at the local system level but then DECLARING that what we SEE is local INCREASE - is a classic "problem" revealed (and devotedly ignored) by atheist evolutionists.

But what do you expect? "ATheists have no other option than belief in evolutionism" for it FITS 'their need' perfectly - as Dawkings quotes point out.

Obviously.

In Christ,

Bob

[ August 16, 2004, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

Quote from an evolutionist here ..

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
never let an inconvenient fact get in the way of a good story.

That "part" of his post was "actually true" of evolutionism's tactics on this thread.

I am saving that one.

And I have to admit - this thread has been more than "a little helpful" in showing my own University students here at home - the desperate lengths and "pretenses" that evolutionists "must make to cling to their story inspite of the inconvenient facts of good science".

Thanks to all for participating!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"#1.When clinging to the "belief" in agiobenesis they must ignore the "fact" that no pre-cell protein building experiments support the mono-chiral distribution NEEDED in real science today to form a living cell NOR do they support the evolutionist dream that living cells can be made of racemized chiral orientations -- so not letting inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story "they just make it up" as UETOTW did in his fact-challenged replies where even HE admits he "has nothing" to go on."

Yopu are now ignoring pages of posted data. If you remember, I was content to let you twist in the wind for a little while based on that little enzyme that all life has that makes the optically pure amino acids for us. Since then, I have given you an exceptional number of references on how common agents can act as catalyst that no longer produce racemized mixtures. The best one was how a common catalyst can be used to make and stabilize optically pure RNA. This optically pure RNA can then be used to make optically pure amino acids. This is not made up, it is well documented. You have ignored pages of posts over moths to make the above statement. It just is not true.

"#2. When clinging to the "belief" that evolutionism can ignore its failure at the abiogenesis level - our evolutionists here seek to "ignore" Dawkings statement that evolution CLAIMS to describe every aspect of living cells "starting from nothing". UTEOTW has sought to "misdirect" the conversation away from that salient point in Dawkings response."

Bob, you say that abiogenesis is a problem and then you used Dawkins as an expert that you quote. In that very quote, he says that it can all be explained, even the origins. This is your problem not mine. YOu are the one quoting someone who disagrees with your assertion.

"#3. In clinging to the "Belief" that they can marry evolutionism to God's Word AS IF Genesis is in fact some lesser form of evolutionism - they ignore "the fact" that for atheists Evolutionism is the ONLY Option. Both atheists and evolutionists are on record as seeing the FLAWS in this poorly construed marriage between evolutionism and God's Word -- starting with DARWIN himself and going on to Dawkings. Again the fact-challenged position of evolutionists here -- was exposed. But still evolutionism's devotees cling to their myths by not letting inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story"

Dawkins is an expert in evolution not religion. Whatever he has to say about religion is his own opinion and not worth the paper it is printed on. OTOH, he is an expert in evolution and in what you quoted to us h said the only a "fool" could look at the evidence and not come to the conclusion that evolution is true. Again, it is not my problem that you choose to quote someone who goes against your assetions.

"#4. In clinging to the "belief" that the horse series "had merrit" evolutionists here ignore OTHER EVOLUTIONISTS (even ATHEISTS) admitting that "IT NEVER EXISTED" and SHOWING that the smooth transitions SEEN in that sequence - never happened. (I.E. what they were SHOWING was contrived - rather than factual support). They themselves list this as a positive embarrassment."

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you... It is only through your butchering of what they actually said that you can make this claim. There was once a time when the general opinion was the evolutionary change took place in a steady, gradual pace going smoothly from A to B to C and so on. As more dta came in, it became apparent that the actual change was jerky and bushy. You are taking quotes that promote the jerky, bushy change, cutting them down, and presenting them as if they say that the change never happened at all. This is either wishful thinking or blatent dishonesty on your part. But all they are saying that did not occur is the outdated smooth, steady transistion. And this has been more than adequately pointed out by givning the context to your hack jobs masquerading as quotes.

"#5. In clinging to the "belief" that TRUE C is in fact the INTERMEDIATE-B between TRUE A and TRUE C - they ignore the fact that Archaeopteryx IS declared to be TRUE C and NOT intermediate-B. Then they circle back and claim "we always show TRUE C as the INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN any A and any C INSTEAD of actually coming up with a verifiable B"."

You have been challenged to support your assertions and you never have. Archy is a fine example of an intermediate. Without the feathers, it was thought to be a mere dinosaur. Strange don't you think for a true bird. Archy does not have a bill. Strange don't you think for a true bird.

As far as your quote from Nouy, I think you have been adequately shown that the intermediates to either side have been found yet you ignore this and continue to post the same old same old as if none of your claims have ever been shown to be false. I have my doubts as to whether you even bother to read the response to you.

"#6. And of course when clinging to the "belief" that we SEE MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy in local systems - evolutionists IGNORE their own ATHEIST EVOLUTIONIST - Isaac Asimov where HE points out that we SEE local INCREASE in entropy NOT local DECREASE (while at the same time ADMITTING that eovlutionism NEEDS to see MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy in that local system)."

You have been shown repeatedly that you expert sources on this matter disagree with your conclusions. No matter, you just cut that part of the response away. That you are an expert at, cutting out the parts you disgaree with to make scientists appear to say something else. You have also been shown, with exceptional patience I might add, that what you are describing has absolutely nothing in common with thermodynamic entropy. I am not sure entirely what it is, but I know it ain't thermo.

"#7. Finally - in evolutionist quote after evolutionist quote given here -- The CREATIONISTS show a level of OBJECTIVITY in debate that the evolutionists here utterly fail to master. Evolutionist respond by attacking the objectivity they can not master. For in all this evolutionist find NOT ONE such quote to offer FROM creationist scientists. (Though I have had quotes presented here from PHDs in Chemistry and one from a PHD in Physics that are both Creationists and known to me on a first name basis). "

Bob, all you have demonstrated with you quotes is your inability to accurately quote those with whom you disagree.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Quote from an evolutionist here ..

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:
never let an inconvenient fact get in the way of a good story.

That "part" of his post was "actually true" of evolutionism's tactics on this thread.

I am saving that one.

And I have to admit - this thread has been more than "a little helpful" in showing my own University students here at home - the desperate lengths and "pretenses" that evolutionists "must make to cling to their story inspite of the inconvenient facts of good science".

Thanks to all for participating!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]You save it. And I'll point out that you failed to respond to the claim next to the quote that Archaeopteryx when found without feather imprints was thought to be nothing mare than a small dinosaur. Amazing for something you call a "true bird" eh?

 

[UTEOTW]

I said
"You are now ignoring pages of posted data. If you remember, I was content to let you twist in the wind for a little while based on that little enzyme that all life has that makes the optically pure amino acids for us. Since then, I have given you an exceptional number of references on how common agents can act as catalyst that no longer produce racemized mixtures. The best one was how a common catalyst can be used to make and stabilize optically pure RNA. This optically pure RNA can then be used to make optically pure amino acids. This is not made up, it is well documented. You have ignored pages of posts over months to make the above statement. It just is not true."

Typos corrected.

Here is one such reference.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science January 9; 303: 196

I gave you this back on July 12.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/36/311/13.html#000187

 

[BobRyan]

In evolutionism's "never ending quest" to re-invent history it is often not surprising to find that "its tactics" seem to rub off on its devotees.

Note for example the clear fact that it was the ATHEIST evolutionary seminar on Archaeopteryx that FINDS that "Archy" IS in fact a "TRUE BIRD".

So who "is discovered that" according to UTEOTW's recent post?

UTEOTW
You save it. And I'll point out that you failed to respond to the claim next to the quote that Archaeopteryx when found without feather imprints was thought to be nothing mare than a small dinosaur. Amazing for something you call a "true bird" eh?

Me!???

And recally WHY the reviewers are so skeptical about Archaeopteryx being "legit"? ITs because of the PRACTICE of evolutionists at the neanderthal quarry of glomming one fossil ONTO another to come up with "hoax after hoax".

This is never Christian scientists found doing this - ONLY evolutionists? "Piltdown anyone"?

Notice also the "Salient point" that Nuoy makes - which is that MATURE features of TRUE BIRDs can not be accept as the LINK BETWEEN Birds and Reptiles.

How sad for evolutionists who must "Believe anyway" no matter how many obstacles their junk science runs into - "because" the athests "have no other choice".

Evolutionism is the ONLY model that "fits the bill" for agnostics and evolutionists.

Christian evolutionists have to continually "pretend" to be "surprised" by that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Note for example the clear fact that it was the ATHEIST evolutionary seminar on Archaeopteryx that FINDS that "Archy" IS in fact a "TRUE BIRD".

Prove it.

Not understand that?

PROVE IT!

Still not getting it?

PROVE IT!!!

You have been making this assumption for weeks now.

Let's ask you some direct questions, not that you ever answer direct questions.

What question do you think they were trying to answer?

Now there are actually many possibilities here. There could have been trying to pick between bird and reptile. They could have been trying to pick between reptile and transitional or bird and transitional. They could have been trying to pick between bird, transitional and reptile. Or there may have been other questions. What are you telling us was the question at ahnd?

What answer do you think they came up with?

Now this could be that it was merely a run of the mill dinosaur. Or it could be that it was a run of the mill bird. Or this could be that it was a transitional. Or this could be some combination of the three. What answer are you telling us they came up with?

Can you give ANY support for your position?

Some quotes from the conference would be nice. A link to the conference proceedings would be best. Any shred of facts would be an improvement. So far you have just been asserting without any evidence.

Now, as you go forth, let's keep a few things in mind. The first is that you initially cited Dodson and Howgate as your authors of choice for the conference. I showed you that Dodson presented information at the very conference that shows that he at least thought that archy was a transitional and said so there. In addition, I gave you numerous citations from both authors from their career that show that they both think of archy as a transitional. So it does not look good for you from that standpoint. Maybe there is a copy of the conference proceedings out there somewhere and we can all read it and you can show me to be wrong. But I doubt it.

The second thing to keep in mind is that Linnean system of classification we use does not have a place for intermediates. If you were to take a line of creatures, let's say from reptile to bird for argument's sake, and classify them, you would have to draw a line and say that everything to one side goes with reptile and everything to the other goes with bird. By the Linnean system, they are one or the other. But that does not mean that they cannot still be a transisitonal. There just is not a place in the middle to put this. And on this fact, your whole "true bird" argument goes flat. I know, you called this method "silly." But it is the way things are done. Maybe you should go sit down with a few biologists and tell them that you think their system is so "silly" and propose a better way. I'll let Raup speak on this matter, again, so that you do not think that I am making this up.

The practicing paleontologist is obliged to place any newly found fossil in the Linnean system of taxonomy. Thus, if one finds a birdlike reptile or a reptilelike bird (such as Archaeopteryx), there is no procedure in the taxonomic system for labeling and classifying this as an intermediate between the two classes Aves and Reptilia. Rather, the practicing paleontologist must decide to place his fossil in one category or the other. The impossibility of officially recognising transitionary forms produces an artificial dichotomy between biologic groups. It is conventional to classify Archaeopteryx as a bird. I have no doubt, however, that if it were permissible under the rules of taxonomy to put Archaeopteryx in some sort of category intermediate between birds and reptiles that we would indeed do that.

This is just one more example of the word games that you have to play to advocate YE. This is just one more example of the facts you have to ignore to advocate YE. This is just one more example of how their position is a house of cards that will fall in the slightest breeze. In this case, Bob's claims of "true bird" are grounded only in the quirks of the Linnean system of classification. Once those quirks are pointed out, his argument falls flat. That he continues to assert the same things after this is pointed out is very instructive.

You still did not tell us why your "true bird" was thought to be a dinosaur when found without clear feather imprints.