PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Believe in Evolution

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
HuaMin

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi,
I heard some people said that Religion is religion, Science is science. And we can just separate them (for this, it seems all of the people can just stop their arguing and sit together). But I really think that there're still lots of controversial topics for both Creationism and Evolution.




-------
Regards,
HuaMin
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 08:41 AM on August 22, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But I really think that there're still lots of controversial topics for both Creationism and Evolution.

If, by controversial, you mean creationism was disproven over 200 years ago and evolution is valid as shown by all evidence found to date, then I would agree with you.  If not, well, you have a lot to learn...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 08:54 AM on August 22, 2005 | IP
HuaMin

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sometimes, I've met some people (the Christians) who still insist that we surely believe 'God creates everything like you and me'. This is so ridiculous and the major point is that they still do not want to accept any other new ideas that support evolution. I think we just cannot change them or their minds.


-------
Regards,
HuaMin
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 03:49 AM on August 23, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Sometimes, I've met some people (the Christians) who still insist that we surely believe 'God creates everything like you and me'. This is so ridiculous and the major point is that they still do not want to accept any other new ideas that support evolution. I think we just cannot change them or their minds.

I agree with you 100%.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:06 PM on August 23, 2005 | IP
HuaMin

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But I think we still can go to the churches and Demon, how do you think to this?

I just think that doing this can keep us have the truly kind minds. Really, human beings are social animals and they do need more healthy social lives.


-------
Regards,
HuaMin
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 09:24 AM on August 26, 2005 | IP
Nidder1

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from HuaMin at 02:49 AM on August 23, 2005 :
Sometimes, I've met some people (the Christians) who still insist that we surely believe 'God creates everything like you and me'. This is so ridiculous and the major point is that they still do not want to accept any other new ideas that support evolution. I think we just cannot change them or their minds.



Interesting.   Have you asked yourself why you cannot change their mind?  And I mean seriously, not some bs answer like 'because their crazy' or similar.

I think what is more interesting, is that in spite of evolutionists being unable to prove their beliefs, they act like they have all the facts.   And they don't.  What they have are theories and hypothesis.   I think it is arrogant for them to assume that their answer is the only answer.   And given the complexity of the origin of life argument, I think that evolutionists who think that their belief is fact are no more different than christians who believe the earth is 6 or 10,000 years old.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:10 AM on August 26, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But I think we still can go to the churches and Demon, how do you think to this?

If people want to go to church, I see no reason why they shouldn't.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:12 PM on August 26, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think what is more interesting, is that in spite of evolutionists being unable to prove their beliefs, they act like they have all the facts.  

First of all, no one "believes" in the theory of evolution, they accept it based on the evidence. and second of all evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains that fact.

What they have are theories and hypothesis.

And a theory is the highest a concept can reach in science.  A theory NEVER turns into a law or a fact.  Theories explain related facts.
So yes, all science has is theories, like the theory of gravity, the atomic theory, the heliocentric theory and the theory of evolution, one of the most well supported theories in science.

And given the complexity of the origin of life argument, I think that evolutionists who think that their belief is fact are no more different than christians who believe the earth is 6 or 10,000 years old.

The origin of life has nothing to do with the theory of evoltuion, they are two different fields of study that are not dependent on each other.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:17 PM on August 26, 2005 | IP
HuaMin

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi,
One important thing is that actually there're lots of proofs for the evolution. You know, earth is with the history of 5.9 billion years but sometimes, I met some Christians who seriously said that we should not believe something like this. How ridiculous is this?[b]

If some people just cannot accept more new facts, like how similar the genes of the oranguutang is related to that of the human beings, how can I just explain again and again to them as their minds just cannot accept more new things? You know, a guy just said that if I can find some genes in the plastics, then he would accept my ideas?




-------
Regards,
HuaMin
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 11:36 PM on August 26, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well here is a copy of a letter that I have sent to the national and state boards of education and the National Science Foundation.  US Board of Education won't respond, Nebraska and Arizona boards of education state tell me it is a question for the NSF and the NSF tells me that they don't make decisions, talk to the board of education (to which NE responded to tell me to talk to the text book publishers... :P )

Make of it what you will

My children are in the early years of education and I have a question.  Since science has now disproved evolution... why is it still being taught in classes?

The following are scientific FACTS.

The moon is receding from the earth at a steady rate.  Since the moon would never survive at a distance of less than 115000 miles we know that (based on currant distant and speed of recession) the earth can not possibly be older than 1.4 billion years (actually, much younger than that as that would be the time the moon and earth would've been physically touching).

Also, the one hundred billion stars of our galaxy rotate around a galactic center.  The inner stars rotate at a faster rate than the outer ones.  Based on those rates, if the galaxy itself were older than a few hundred million (not billion) years old, the galaxy would be a featureless disk, not a spiral.  Evolutionists admit the "winding-up" dilemma (their terminology, not mine) and can not explain it.

Again, meteorites prove a young earth.  No meteorites are found buried in rocks that are 'alleged' to be old.  Also, all meteorite craters found on the earth seem to be of recent origin.  

Micrometeoroids (microscopic particles of meteor dust) exit in abundance in the solar system.  The very existence of this dust provides evidence of a young system.  The dust is being removed much more quickly (smaller particles being flung out of the system and larger ones spiraling into the sun).  According to Frank Low of the University of Arizona "particles this small can only survive in stable orbits for a few ten-thousand years".

Comets:  Astronomer's estimate that the maximum life of a short-term comet vary from ten thousand to twenty-five thousand years.  There is also no known way for comets to be created.  They are considered to have been formed at the beginning of the universe's creation.  Therefore there should be no more comets circling our sun if the solar system is more than twenty-five thousand years old.

The earth's rotation is known to be slowing.  It takes 118,000 years to lose one solar day per year.  Extrapolating backwords, if the earth were 4.7 billion years old, the earth would have been spinning 34,000 times (annually) with 15-minute solar days and the equator whirling at 100,000 mph.  This can be verified by Co-ordinated Universal Time (of which the Nationa Bureau of Standards and the U.S. National Observatory are part).  

Erosion.  The modern form of continental surface is "thought" to be 100 million years old and composed of 3.5 billion year old rock.  Evolutionists claim that erosion has been cutting continental surfaces down for the past 70 million years.  The annual (verified) amount of sediment carried from the continents into the seas is 27.5 billion tons.  At that rate, all of the continents would be reduced to sea level in about 14 million years (makes you wonder just how high these continents were 70 million years ago).  Atop that, there are 410 million billion tons of sediment residing on the ocean bottom, averaging a depth of less than twelve hundred feet.  Base on the 27.5 million tons of sediment per year that is being dumped into the ocean, we know that the ocean floor's age cannot exceed 15 million years at the MOST.  

Glaciars.  It has been proven that the artic and antarctic ice pacts were once luxuriant forests and had a tropical climate.  Now two-thirds of the world's fress water supply is frozen there.  We also know that whatever caused this happened quickly.  Mammoths and mastadons were frozen so quickly that there remains have been mummified.  Based on the current rate of glaciar height increase we can prove that the glaciars are about nine hundred years ago (based on the discovery of P-38 fighters that were lost on July 15,1942 and were found 260 feet below the surface of a glaciar in Greenland.  Also, maps from the early 1500's (on display in the National Museum of Turkey) show the coastline of Antarctica (showing rivers and mountains, not featureless ice).  The mountains and portions of the coastline shown on those maps has been confirmed by scientific studies since 1952.  The Bauche map (circa 1754) show that the antarctic continent was actually two island (a fact not reestablished until 1958) yet geologists try to say that the ice has been there for many tens of thousands of years.

Accumulation of sea salts.  Geochemical studies of the oceans prove that the earth can not be that old.  Even assuming that there were NO chemicals present in the oceans at the time of creation (purported by evolutionists) then based on the current rate of chemicals entering the ocean the earth would be a MAXIMUM of 62 million years old (and if there had been no chemicals in the oceans at the time that the earth was created, then there would also have been no sea life).

Argument: Oil, gas and coal take millions of years to form.  Actually it has been demonstrated that cellulosic material can be converted into a good grade of petrolium in twenty minutes.  Wood or other cullulosic material has been converted into coal in a matter of hours.   The incredible pressure found in gas and oil wells indicate that these reservoirs are of a relatively young age.  Human fossil evidence has been found in many coal beds.

Also, based on the release of methane gasses (one of the methods for finding an oil field is testing for methane absorption in the plant life) then the oldest any of the current natural gas reservoirs possibly be is about three million years old or they would no longer have enough pressure (the gas is escaping, remember) to be located this way.

Point.  In 1958, Dr. Johannes Huerzeler of the Museum of Natural History in Switzerland, found a child's human jawbone at a depth of six hundred feet in a coal mine in Italy.  The coal it was removed from had been dated at twenty million years (i'll get to dating in a minute).
In 1885 at the Heimathaus Museum in Australia a cast iron block was found inside a coal block that had been dated at sixty million years.  Guess we've been casting iron block longer than anyone knew.
Here at home an 18-carat gold chain was found in a lump of coal that is claimed to have been three hundred million years old. (Morrisonville, Illinois; 1891)
And an iron pot in 1912 (Thomas, Oklahoma) in another three hundred million years old coal seem.

Here's an interesting tidbit.  From 1924 to 1988 Carlsbad Caverns had a sign stating that it was 260 million years old.
In 1988 a new sign was put up claiming it was 7 to 10 million years old.
A 2 million years old sign followed.
Currently there is no sign.

As our ability to date items has improved, the actual age of items has steadily decreased.  

In 1964, Dr. Clifford Burdick conducted a sampling of pollen from various strata, supposedly three to six HUNDRED MILLION years old at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.  Along with pollen of extinct species he also found pollen from plants that now grow at the top of the canyon (evergreens, conifers, oaks, etc.).  Scientists at the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University couldn't believe it and examined his samples.  Assuming that it was a farce they then conducted their own studies in 1970 and got the same results.  They had now disproved the age of the Grand Canyon.

How about a clincher.  Atmospheric Helium.  Sensors have measured the rate of helium released into the atmosphere at 13 million atoms per square inch per second.  They theorize that the rate of escape in outer space is about .3 million atoms per square inch per second.  It's accumulating 40 times as fast as it is being released.  Even assuming there was NO primordial (yeah, right) helium, the current atmosphere can be calculated to be NO older than 370,000 years old.

And, finally, unless you need more scientific proof.  The earth's magnetic field.  It is a known fact that the earth's electromagnetic field is decaying.  By extrapolating the decay and heat loss backwards (based on the current verifiable rate of decay) the earth can be no more than ten thousand years old.  Older than that and it would have been too hot for life (any life) to exist.  If life is no more than ten thousand years old, it can not possibly have evolved as evolutionists say.  Which brings us back to carbon dating.  Since the earth's magnetic field shields us from the sun's broiling clouds of electrified gas and deadly cosmic rays, this depletion has had two known side effects: (1) future harmful biological effects are going to happen and (2) we must lower our current carbon 14 dating dates.  Decay is measured in half-lives (that's how we carbon date, for instance).  Using the current known half-life of earth's magnetic field (NASA discovered this in 1971) and taking into account the loss of rotating electrical engergy we can specify that the half-life of the our magnetic field is 1400 years.  5 of these half-lives (or 7000 years) would put the current magnetic field at 1/32 of it's original value).  Based on the data from the last 165+ years, both past and future energy levels can then be estimated.  Ten thousand years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been 150 times as strong as it is today.  The same as some magnetic stars.  In 20,000 B.C. it would be 60,000 times as strong and would have generated enough heat (by associated electrical current) to have caused a complete and total meltdown of the earth).  Knowing that the stronger magnetic field of the past would have also given us better shielding of the earth and its atmosphere from primay comsic rays, we know that the production of radioactive C14 into the atmoshpere was also reduced.  Smaller rate of C14 production means that we must markedly reduce the age of our previous C14 dating.  The older the assumed date, the higher the margin of error would be.

The byproduct of all this science is that we also can assume the end of the earth.  If the rate of magnetic decay continues at its currently linear rate, then the dipole moment will vanish abround A.D. 3991 (I won't be hear to see it).  Even with a more reserved exponential rate of decay, we are at most looking at A.D. 11,000.  But this is just a side note.  

One more, just in case you aren't conviced.  Modern genetecists (studying the genetics of women in the present and past populations trace the genes back to a single female (whom they have, of course, nicknamed "Eve").  Using the current research methods, they date her to be have existed approximately sixty-five hundred years ago.
Additionally, the current population of six billion (or so) people could be generated by an original number of eight people in about forty-five hundred years.  If we assume that the earth is billions of years old, and that humans (in some form or another) hae existed for fifty thousand years (and considering the rate of decay of human bones) then our current population should be much larger and we would literally be tripping over skeletons.

These are just the scientific facts that prove that earth is much younger than my old textbooks said.  The actual arguments showing how absurd evolution is a completely other subject.  These facts are not in dispute, not even in the scientific community (you can check), yet our children's textbooks still teach dis-proven theories.

Why?



-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:00 PM on September 6, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My children are in the early years of education and I have a question.  Since science has now disproved evolution... why is it still being taught in classes?

Because science HASN'T disproven evolution, it is still one of the strongest theories in science, is backed up by all evidence found to date and is the only unfalsified explaination for the diversity of life on earth.

The moon is receding from the earth at a steady rate.

And this has nothing to do with evoluiotn.  
This is another PRATT, a point refuted a thousand times.  From here:
Moon
"The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.
The magnitude of tidal friction depends on the arrangement of the continents. In the past, the continents were arranged such that tidal friction, and thus the rates of earth's slowing and the moon's recession, would have been less. The earth's rotation has slowed at a rate of two seconds every 100,000 years (Eicher 1976).
The rate of earth's rotation in the distant past can be measured. Corals produce skeletons with both daily layers and yearly patterns, so we can count the number of days per year when the coral grew. Measurements of fossil corals from 180 to 400 million years ago show year lengths from 381 to 410 days, with older corals showing more days per year (Eicher 1976; Scrutton 1970; Wells 1963; 1970). Similarly, days per year can also be computed from growth patterns in mollusks (Pannella 1976; Scrutton 1978) and stromatolites (Mohr 1975; Pannella et al. 1968) and from sediment deposition patterns (Williams 1997). All such measurements are consistent with a gradual rate of earth's slowing for the last 650 million years.
The clocks based on the slowing of earth's rotation described above provide an independent method of dating geological layers over most of the fossil record. The data is inconsistent with a young earth."

So the FACT is, the moon's recession fits well within a billions of years old earth and your sources are incorrect.

Based on those rates, if the galaxy itself were older than a few hundred million (not billion) years old, the galaxy would be a featureless disk, not a spiral.  Evolutionists admit the "winding-up" dilemma (their terminology, not mine) and can not explain
it.


Evolutionists don't study the galaxy, astronomers do, once again this has nothing to do with evolution.  Then show us those "evolutionists" who make this claim, funny how you can't mention one name to support your crazy idea.  All evidence observed by real astronomers supports a 15 billion year old universe, show us the evidence to support your claims.

Again, meteorites prove a young earth.  No meteorites are found buried in rocks that are 'alleged' to be old.  Also, all meteorite craters found on the earth seem to be of recent origin.

Simply incorrect, you don't know what you're talking about!  From here:
Meteors

"The oldest of these fossils is the meteorite of Osterplana, Sweden, that was found in 1987 imbedded in some limestone. This limestone, which dated from Ordovician times, revealed to the scientists that the imbedded meteorite had fallen 480 million years ago! The meteorite of Osterplana is even older than the Brunflo meteorite which previously held the record for the "oldest". Brunflo, which was also found in Swedish limestone in 1980, has a terrestrial age of 450 million years. "

480 million years and 450 million years sure sounds old to me.

Micrometeoroids (microscopic particles of meteor dust) exit in abundance in the solar system.  The very existence of this dust provides evidence of a young system.  The dust is being removed much more quickly (smaller particles being flung out of the system and larger ones spiraling into the sun).  According to Frank Low of the University of Arizona "particles this small can only survive in stable orbits for a few ten-thousand
years".


Is this the same Frank Low who has this to say, from here:
FrankLow

" The zodiacal dust bands in our solar system, discovered 16 years ago in Infrared Astronomy Satellite (IRAS) observations by Low and colleagues, formed and have been replenished for four billion years by collisions of asteroids between Mars and Jupiter. Scientists say the belt of asteroids would have been another planet in our solar system, except that Jupiter's tremendous gravitational forces prevent planet formation so close by."

So Low is saying that these dust bands formed 4 billion years ago and are being replenished by asteroid collisions.  Show us the evidence that he says anything else.

Comets:  Astronomer's estimate that the maximum life of a short-term comet vary from ten thousand to twenty-five thousand years.  There is also no known way for comets to be created.  They are considered to have been formed at the beginning of the universe's creation.  Therefore there should be no more comets circling our sun if the solar system is more than twenty-five thousand years
old.


Except for the fact that we now know where comets come from and it fits in completely with a 15 billion year old earth.  Ever here of the Oort cloud or the Kupier belt.  Do yourself a favor and look them up.

The earth's rotation is known to be slowing.  It takes 118,000 years to lose one solar day per year.  Extrapolating backwords, if the earth were 4.7 billion years old, the earth would have been spinning 34,000 times (annually) with 15-minute solar days and the equator whirling at 100,000 mph.  This can be verified by Co-ordinated Universal Time (of which the Nationa Bureau of Standards and the U.S. National Observatory are
part).


Completely wrong.  From here:
EarthRotation

"The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.
The rate at which the earth is slowing today is higher than average because the present rate of spin is in resonance with the back-and-forth movement of the oceans.
Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963)."

So the rate of slowing you posted is wrong.

Erosion.  The modern form of continental surface is "thought" to be 100 million years old and composed of 3.5 billion year old rock.  Evolutionists claim that erosion has been cutting continental surfaces down for the past 70 million years.  The annual (verified) amount of sediment carried from the continents into the seas is 27.5 billion tons.  At that rate, all of the continents would be reduced to sea level in about 14 million years (makes you wonder just how high these continents were 70 million years ago).  Atop that, there are 410 million billion tons of sediment residing on the ocean bottom, averaging a depth of less than twelve hundred feet.  Base on the 27.5 million tons of sediment per year that is being dumped into the ocean, we know that the ocean floor's age cannot exceed 15 million years at the
MOST.


You seem to forget that yes, errosion is cutting continental surfaces, but other forces are building them.  Sedimentation, volcanic activity, build up up continental surfaces.  So your calculations are, again, just plain wrong.
As for the ocean, again you are wrong.  From here:
Ocean
"The thickness of sediment in the oceans varies, and it is consistent with the age of the ocean floor. The thickness is zero at the mid-Atlantic Ridge, where new ocean crust is forming, and there is about 150 million years' worth of sediment at the continental margins. The average age of the ocean floor is younger than the earth due to subduction at some plate margins and formation of new crust at others. "

Glaciars.  It has been proven that the artic and antarctic ice pacts were once luxuriant forests and had a tropical climate.  Now two-thirds of the world's fress water supply is frozen there.  We also know that whatever caused this happened quickly.  Mammoths and mastadons were frozen so quickly that there remains have been mummified.  Based on the current rate of glaciar height increase we can prove that the glaciars are about nine hundred years ago (based on the discovery of P-38 fighters that were lost on July 15,1942 and were found 260 feet below the surface of a glaciar in Greenland.

Again, untrue, don't you get tired of being wrong all the time??  From here:
planes
"The airplanes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing. Ice core dating takes place on stable ice fields, not active glaciers. The interior of Greenland, where ice cores were taken, receives much less snow. In Antarctica, where ice cores dating back more than 100,000 years have been collected, the rate of snow accumulation is much less still."

You and your sources obviously don't understand glaciation rates or how they are determined.    As to your claim about the height of glaciers indicating they are only 900 years old, what crap!  Glaciers have been forming and melting for millions of years, From here:
OldGlaciers
" Dokriyani
This glacier is believed to be as old as the Himalayan Mountains. Dokriani 'Bamak' is a well-developed medium sized glacier of the Bhagirathi basin. The glacier is 5 km long and flows in a northwest direction terminating at an elevation of 3,800 m. It originates at an altitude of 13 000 feet in Uttaranchal's Garhwal district. It is one of the most studied glaciers in the world. A recent study says that it has been shrinking by a few metres every year. "

So your claim is directly refuted.

AS to the ancient maps like the Bauche map, they are inaccurate, from here:
AncientMaps
"according to a new book, The Piri Reis Map of 1513 by Gregory Mcintosh on subject of Peri Reis Map, Oronteus Finaeus Map, Mercator Map and Philippe Bauche ancient maps of Antacrtica supposedly revealing continental outlines, landforms, continental fracture zone, etc.; Tests of Hapgoode's, Mallery's, Strachen's, et. al., "regridding and site tables" ARE NOT ACCURATE - METHODOLOGY IS NOT CARTOGRAPHICALLY VALID; (mathematical transformations were not made; landforms, islands, shapes were fudged to fit their hypothesis); Capt. Mallery was only a civil engineer, not with any federal agency; USN only reviewed Hapgood's graphic results - no tests were ever made on validity of transformations - assumptions were taken as truth."

And form here:
AncientMapsII
"."(Quache) The question of accuracy is particularly straightforward; New Zealand is shown as part of the larger landmass, a clear inaccuracy. However, notes on the map render any claims of sub-glacial geography moot, because Buache states that the map is a composite taken from the accounts of sailors who had scouted the ice-cap: "Drawn from the memories and from the original map of Monsier de Lozier Bouvet Chargé of this expedition."(Quache) The right hand side of the map contains an account of this expedition that, along with other portions of the map, mentions icebergs. Indeed, you don't even need to translate the document to see that icebergs have been illustrated on the map, but if you do, Buache has provided descriptions of their size: "from 2 to 300 feet high. And from one half league up to 2 or 3 leagues of circumference".(Quache) This is clearly not an ice-free Antarctica."

Notice the last sentence, "This is clearly NOT an ice-free Antarctica."  Your claims are wrong.

Accumulation of sea salts.  Geochemical studies of the oceans prove that the earth can not be that old.

Another old claim easily refuted.  The salinity of the ocean is in equilibrium and has been for a long time.  Yes, salts and other materials are released into the ocean but there are also mechanisms that remove them from the ocean also.
From here:
Salinity
"There are bodies of water saltier than the oceans: the Great Salt Lake, the Dead Sea, and even the Mediterranean Sea are all saltier than the ocean in general. These three bodies of water share a common characteristic: they are located in dry regions with little precipitation. This, I think, gives a clue to the reason that the oceans in general are not saturated with dissolved minerals, and that their average salinity has not changed much for many millions of years."

So salinity is NOT steadily increasing as you claim.

From here:
SalinityII
"chemical constituents of seawater originate from 6 sources:
degassing (releasing of volatile chemicals) of earth's mass that began after the planet's formation and continues today during volcanic activity
erosion of sediments and basalts on land by weathering
seawater reactions with basalt extruded under the sea that release chemicals to seawater
biological processes that produce organic chemicals and cycle bioreactive elements
photochemical reactions that occur in the upper pelagic waters
radioactive decay of elements that yield other elements
however, if these sources weren't balanced by sinks, the ocean would become saltier -- but it appears to be in chemical equilibrium "

Sea water is in equilibrium and has been for millions of years.

Argument: Oil, gas and coal take millions of years to form.  Actually it has been demonstrated that cellulosic material can be converted into a good grade of petrolium in twenty minutes.

In labrotories that are not trying to reproduce natural means.  Oil, coal and natural gas DO take millions of years to form under natural conditions, all the experts agree.  First of all it takes millions of years for enough organic material to accumulate, we see coal fields that have the remenants of multiple forrests layered in them.  How long does it take for a forest to grow, thrive, die out, have sediment deposited on it, then have another forest grow, thrive and die out, on top of it?  Your claims are wrong again.

The incredible pressure found in gas and oil wells indicate that these reservoirs are of a relatively young age.  Human fossil evidence has been found in many coal beds.

No, they are still evidence that coal, oil and gas take millions of years to form.  I know we have found dinosaur foot prints in coal fields, show us human foot prints found, I don't believe you.  See here:
DinoPrints.

As to the speed at which it forms naturally, :
CoalFormation
"The organic material that makes up coal comes from ancient
swamps. Go out to the nearest bog or marsh and grab a handful
of the stuff that oozes around your feet. That's called peat, and it
has the potential to become coal in millions of years.
Coal has always been forming and is still forming now. Like
most geological processes, we cannot wait and watch for it to
happen. Scientists are trying to model coal formation in the
laboratory, but it's not easy to define reasonable conditions which
mimic in several months what nature does in millions of years."

So all the experts agree, coal, oil and gas take millions of years to form naturally.

Dr. Johannes Huerzeler of the Museum of Natural History in Switzerland, found a child's human jawbone

Antecdotal, lets see some real data on this.

In 1885 at the Heimathaus Museum in Australia a cast iron block was found inside a coal block that had been dated at sixty million years.

Antecdotal, lets see some real data on this.

You base your claims on these legends that are almost always disproven.  Show us the research and who did the research and then we'll talk.  

As our ability to date items has improved, the actual age of items has steadily
decreased.


This is a lie, since the advent of radiometric dating, when the original estimate of the earth's age was 4 billion years (1940's), our estimate has increased to 4.5 billion years.

How about a clincher.  Atmospheric Helium.  Sensors have measured the rate of helium released into the atmosphere at 13 million atoms per square inch per second.  They theorize that the rate of escape in outer space is about .3 million atoms per square inch per second.  It's accumulating 40 times as fast as it is being released.  Even assuming there was NO primordial (yeah, right) helium, the current atmosphere can be calculated to be NO older than 370,000 years old.

Once again, your claim is out of date and incorrect.  From here:  Helium
"Helium is a very light atom, and some of the helium in the upper atmosphere can reach escape velocity simply via its temperature. Thermal escape of helium alone is not enough to account for its scarcity in the atmosphere, but helium in the atmosphere also gets ionized and follows the earth's magnetic field lines. When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements (Lie-Svendsen and Rees 1996). "

Helium is in equilibrium in our atmosphere.  Just like all your claims, no evidence for a young earth.

And, finally, unless you need more scientific proof.  The earth's magnetic field.  It is a known fact that the earth's electromagnetic field is decaying.

No, earth's magnetic field is NOT decaying, many times during the life of the planet, the field has fluctuated, been stronger, been weaker and even reversed polarity.  But it is not decaying, once again you are wrong.  From here:
GeoMagnetism
"Empirical measurement of the earth's magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.


The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth's interior. "

So far, nothing you've posted even has any thing to do with evolution.  You have only demonstrated that you do poor research by relying on out of date, intentionally dishonest creationist web sites.  Guess you don't have the guts to do any real research.

One more, just in case you aren't
conviced.


You've only convinced us that you don't know what you're talking about.

Modern genetecists (studying the genetics of women in the present and past populations trace the genes back to a single female (whom they have, of course, nicknamed "Eve").  Using the current research methods, they date her to be have existed approximately sixty-five hundred years ago.

Yeah, so what?  You got this wrong also, mitochondrial eve has been traced back 150,000 years not 6500.  You are wrong again.

Additionally, the current population of six billion (or so) people could be generated by an original number of eight people in about forty-five hundred years.

Simply impossible!  8 people couldn't have repopulated the earth in a mere 4500 years.  We also know that there were numerous civilazations living before, during and after the supposed flood, so it had to have been a myth, simple as that.

If we assume that the earth is billions of years old, and that humans (in some form or another) hae existed for fifty thousand years (and considering the rate of decay of human bones) then our current population should be much larger and we would literally be tripping over skeletons.

Again, a stupid notion!  Most bones don't fossilize, most complete breakdown, so no, we shouldn't be tripping over skeletons!

These are just the scientific facts that prove that earth is much younger than my old textbooks said.

No, they are debunked myths that creationists desperately claim are facts in an attempt to prop up their silly superstitions.  Everything you've posted has been completely debunked and shown to be false.  Creationism was disproven over 200 years ago.  And you never even talked about evolution!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:16 PM on September 7, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I also like that most of your arguments are tied to the current C14 dating method.  Look at the history of the C14 dating used to determine the age of Carlbad Caverns.  Why the discrepancy over the years?  Why do the same rocks, when  tested by the same labs, often come away with varying ages?  Dr. Melvin Cook, professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah denounced the results of various testing labs as "suprious", since their reported ages for the SAME rock ranged from thousands to billions of years.  ***"The Moon Issue" Science, Jan 30th 1970 Dr. M.A.Cook (I'm pretty sure he wasn't a creationist, just guessing).  Also, how do you determine what portion of a daughter product was primordial and not from decay?  The problem that evolution has with creation (ok, a problem) is that they don't want to admit that creation takes into account that the universe was created in six days as a fully functioning entity.  Evolutionists seem to think that we all think that if you cut open Adam and Eve you would've found fetal tissue instead of full grown adults.  We don't.  God created a mature human being.   He created mature animals.  He created a mature universe with everything already set in motion.  See, when it comes right down to it, you believe one of two things... Something took nothing and created everything or nothing took nothing and created everything.  Which seems more preposterous.  People don't like the idea of God because they can't fathom the idea that someone has been around forever with no beginning.  We like begininngs.  They are neat and orderly.  The problem is, even with evolution, there is no beginning?  Big Bang?  All that stuff still had to come from somewhere.  Something (God or big ball of elements/gases/whatever) has to have been around forever with no beginning.  Once you have those two ideas well in hand (that something in some form has ALWAYS existed and that a deity would've created a fully functioning and developed universe) then alot of arguments become alot less preposterous.  So, put yourself in the place of a creationist for a moment... would you believe that Adam and Eve were made of fetal tissue and therefore that all carbon dating (even an imperfect state) would measure it's age from creation or would there be primordial content?  I can't answer that for you.  Just think about it.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:25 PM on September 7, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 2:25 PM on September 7, 2005 :
I also like that most of your arguments are tied to the current C14 dating method.  


Was C14 dating mentioned at all?

Look at the history of the C14 dating used to determine the age of Carlbad Caverns.  Why the discrepancy over the years?  Why do the same rocks, when  tested by the same labs, often come away with varying ages?  Dr. Melvin Cook, professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah denounced the results of various testing labs as "suprious", since their reported ages for the SAME rock ranged from thousands to billions of years.  ***"The Moon Issue" Science, Jan 30th 1970 Dr. M.A.Cook (I'm pretty sure he wasn't a creationist, just guessing).


I think you guessed wrong.

Biography of Melvin A. Cook
"Explosives expert and chemist, known for work on shaped charges and slurry explosives; professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah; businessman; author of works on explosives. Also published works on creationism, particularly on the relationship between science and Mormonism."

Also, how do you determine what portion of a daughter product was primordial and not from decay?  


Look at the isochrons.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 4:53 PM on September 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

I also like that most of your arguments are tied to the current C14 dating method.  Look at the history of the C14 dating used to determine the age of Carlbad Caverns.  Why the discrepancy over the years?

Well, to start off, Carbon 14 dating is not used on rock, it only works on organic material, and second it's only good back 50,000 years and since Carlsbad Cavern started forming 60 million years ago, no one in their right mind would use C-14 to try and date it.  Your obviously don't understand what your talking about, why don't you learn a little before you try to debate, you're just making an ass out of yourself.

Why do the same rocks, when  tested by the same labs, often come away with varying ages?

I don't know, give us the research and the data from specific examples and then we'll talk.  The truth is radiometric dating produces dates that agree, you've demonstrated your poor research ability, why should we take your word for it now?

Dr. Melvin Cook, professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah denounced the results of various testing labs as "suprious", since their reported ages for the SAME rock ranged from thousands to billions of years.  ***"The Moon Issue" Science, Jan 30th 1970 Dr. M.A.Cook

Here's another problem, Cook is 45 years out of date, got anything from this century?

As to his scientific accuracy, well, he wasn't a physicist or an expert on radiodating and he is known to use religion to reach erroneous conclusions, from here:
Cook
"The belief that religion, specifically Mormonism, held keys to a fundamental understanding of many scientific principles and the universe, occasionally surfaced in Cook's writings and talks. In his Reynold lecture in 1952 he went outside the printed text to mention that he thought the real source of solar energy was "borrowed light", i.e. accretion and that nuclear fusion was a minor contribution, if any at all."

So I think we can ignore him as a source.

Also, how do you determine what portion of a daughter product was primordial and not from decay?

In radiometric dating, all you need is the ratio of daughter element to parent element to find get a date.

The problem that evolution has with creation (ok, a problem) is that they don't want to admit that creation takes into account that the universe was created in six days as a fully functioning entity.

But it wasn't, all evidence points to a 15 billion year old universe, no evidence supports a young earth.

Evolutionists seem to think that we all think that if you cut open Adam and Eve you would've found fetal tissue instead of full grown adults.  

Most rational people know Adam and Eve were not real, they are myths that are not supported by evidence.  Genetics and the fossil record shows us that humanity stretches back much futher than 6,000 years, we know of cities that are older than that!

God created a mature human being.

This is falsified by the fossil record.

He created mature animals.  He created a mature universe with everything already set in motion.

That looks exactly like it evolved.  Sorry, you have no evidence for your ascertion, and all available evidence falsifies it.  

See, when it comes right down to it, you believe one of two things... Something took nothing and created everything or nothing took nothing and created everything.

I don't believe that at all, but you believe there is an eternal someone, why is that easier to believe than energy being eternal?

Which seems more preposterous.

A magic skyman sitting outside of time, eternal, making everything appear likes it's billions of years old when it's only 6,000, that's the most preposterous, most unbelievable thing I've ever heard.

People don't like the idea of God because they can't fathom the idea that someone has been around forever with no beginning.

What evidence do you have that He's been around since the begining?  What evidence do you have that he even exists?

The problem is, even with evolution, there is no beginning?

Sure there is, evolution began after the first life arose.

Big Bang?  All that stuff still had to come from somewhere.

Not according to aquantum physics, the universe could have literally started itself, with no need for God.  Read what Stephen Hawking has to say about the begining of the universe.

Something (God or big ball of elements/gases/whatever) has to have been around forever with no beginning.

Why?

Once you have those two ideas well in hand (that something in some form has ALWAYS existed and that a deity would've created a fully functioning and developed universe) then alot of arguments become alot less preposterous.

Not about God, it's still preposterous, a supreme deity is uneeded for the begining of the universe and there is absolutely no evidence to support it's existance.

So, put yourself in the place of a creationist for a moment... would you believe that Adam and Eve were made of fetal tissue and therefore that all carbon dating (even an imperfect state) would measure it's age from creation or would there be primordial content?  I can't answer that for you.  Just think about it.

Adam and Eve never really existed so the point it moot...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:12 PM on September 7, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance. So dR/dt = k/R6, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)6 = 1.29x1050 m7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf7 — Ri7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = the Roche Limit, t = 1.37 x 109 years.

Still trying to figure out this whole moon receding thing... any math majors that can help me out on this?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:10 PM on September 7, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Ever here of the Oort cloud or the Kupier belt.  Do yourself a favor and look them up."

Actually, I had heard of the Oort cloud.  Tried finding it on NSF.  Nothing listed.  Tried looking it up on NASA.  Where exactly are the pictures again?  Besides, Oort made this theory back in 1950.  Got anything from this century?  I know that you, of all people, aren't quoting sources from half a century ago.  The way you don't agree with any science from more than five years ago, I'd be interested in what you'll be saying about your own comments here in a decade...


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:38 AM on September 8, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 07:38 AM on September 8, 2005 :
"Ever here of the Oort cloud or the Kupier belt.  Do yourself a favor and look them up."

Actually, I had heard of the Oort cloud.  Tried finding it on NSF.  Nothing listed.  Tried looking it up on NASA.


Then you must have found this:Sedna

This is likely the first detection of the long-hypothesized "Oort cloud," a faraway repository of small icy bodies that supplies the comets that streak by Earth.


Where exactly are the pictures again?  





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:39 AM on September 8, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Directly from the site you listed...

The extremely elliptical orbit of Sedna is unlike anything previously seen by astronomers; however, it resembles that of objects predicted to lie in the hypothetical Oort cloud. The cloud is thought to explain the existence of certain comets. It is believed to surround the Sun and extend outward halfway to the star closest to the Sun. But Sedna is 10 times closer than the predicted distance of the Oort cloud. Brown says this "inner Oort cloud" may have been formed by gravity from a rogue star near the Sun in the solar system's early days

See all those words: believed, resembles, closer than predicted, may have been, yadda, yadda, yadda.  What does this "planetoid" (Nasa's wording, not mine) have to do with Oort's cloud?  Demon seems to want to deal with cold, hard, proven facts.  I'm trying to stay on his playing field.  If I came up with some site that said believed, resembles, closer than predicted, may have been... he'd be all down my throat about throwing around unproven theories in the face of his cold hard truths....  Thanks for playing.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:16 AM on September 8, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Based on those rates, if the galaxy itself were older than a few hundred million (not billion) years old, the galaxy would be a featureless disk, not a spiral.  Evolutionists admit the "winding-up" dilemma (their terminology, not mine) and can not explain
it.

Evolutionists don't study the galaxy, astronomers do, once again this has nothing to do with evolution.  Then show us those "evolutionists" who make this claim, funny how you can't mention one name to support your crazy idea.  All evidence observed by real astronomers supports a 15 billion year old universe, show us the evidence to support your claims.

Try D. Zaritsky, H-W. Rix, and M. Rieke, Inner spiral structure of the galaxy M51, Nature 364:313-315 (July 22, 1993).

Try Binney, J. and Tremaine, S. Galactic Dynamics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 346-347, 1987

And before you throw density waves and such at me, find a source that doesn't start with "we think" or "would explain".  I'd like to see something that states "we now have proof of".


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:44 AM on September 8, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And before you throw density waves and such at me, find a source that doesn't start with "we think" or "would explain".  I'd like to see something that states "we now have proof of".

I highly doubt a journal paper with the line "we now have proof" would get through peer-review in any scientific discipline. Proof doesn't exist in science, you may find lines such as "we have evidence for" but proof no.

Your request hints at your lack of knowlage concerning science and the scientific method.


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 3:22 PM on September 8, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Besides, Oort made this theory back in 1950.  Got anything from this century?  I know that you, of all people, aren't quoting sources from half a century ago.  The way you don't agree with any science from more than five years ago, I'd be interested in what you'll be saying about your own comments here in a decade...

Whoa, you skipped right over the Kuiper Belt.
It's existance completely refutes your claim, which was:

Comets:  Astronomer's estimate that the maximum life of a short-term comet vary from ten thousand to twenty-five thousand years.  There is also no known way for comets to be created.  They are considered to have been formed at the beginning of the universe's creation.  Therefore there should be no more comets circling our sun if the solar system is more than twenty-five thousand years old.

So here's a little primer on the Kuiper Belt, from here:
Kuiper Belt

"The existence of the Kuiper Belt was first predicted by mid-20th century astronomers such as Kenneth Edgeworth and Gerard Kuiper. These and other astronomers of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s postulated that a debris belt of material left over from planetary formation might orbit the Sun beyond Neptune. However, the telescope and photographic technology of the mid-20th century was too primitive to give astronomers much hope of finding bodies our there- they were simply too faint to be found. By the late 1980s cometary astronomers, however, found strong evidence in the inclination distribution of the Jupiter family comets that they are coming from a disk-like reservoir just beyond Neptune's orbit. As a result, a number of searches were begun in the late 1980s for the belt of material that Kuiper predicted. The first Kuiper Belt Object (KBO) was subsequently discovered in 1992. This object, designated 1992QB1, is more than 1000 times fainter than Pluto, and probably about 10--15 times smaller in radius.
Over 500 KBOs has been discovered by late 2001, with estimated diameters ranging from 50 to 1200 km. It is expected that the KBO size distribution includes both smaller objects (comets) and larger ones (perhaps even up to Pluto's size)."
Based on the amount of sky left to be searched and the number of faint, distant objects being found in faint CCD images, it is estimated that over 100,000 KBOs with diameters >50 km may orbit in a disk- or belt-like structure that stretches from 30 to at least 55 Astronomical Units (AU) from the Sun. This large population means that the Kuiper Belt is an even greater collection of objects than the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter."

There you go, direct observation from this century of the Kuiper Belt, your point is completely disproven, there is a source of short period comets, the solar system is older than 25,000 years.

See all those words: believed, resembles, closer than predicted, may have been, yadda, yadda, yadda.  What does this "planetoid" (Nasa's wording, not mine) have to do with Oort's cloud?  Demon seems to want to deal with cold, hard, proven facts.  I'm trying to stay on his playing field.  If I came up with some site that said believed, resembles, closer than predicted, may have been... he'd be all down my throat about throwing around unproven theories in the face of his cold hard truths....  Thanks for playing.

What is it about the scientific method you don't get?  In 1950 Oort proposed the existance of a shell of icy rocks surronding the solar system to explain the evidence he did observe, here is that evidence, from here:
OortCloud
"comets orbit the sun from any direction - including above or below the ecliptic - with no one direction showing bias.
the directions of their orbits are half planetwise, half anti-planetwise (retrograde) indicating a high degree of randomness to their paths.
most of their orbits tend to be concentrated towards the very large indeed.
Furthermore Oort noticed that most of the comets' orbits must have been new - in other words, the first time they had visited the inner solar system. The planets (massive Jupiter in particular) exert a gravitational pull on comets, perturbing their orbits. This could not have happened for the orbits observed, revealing the comets as new visitors."

Since that time, all data, all observations, have supported his theory.  Now you come along and claim it can't be true merely because it disproves your creation myths.  Where is your evidence?  Where is your better explaination for long period comets?  Where is your evidence that refutes the Oort cloud?  It's not enough to claim that since we can't observe it yet, it doesn't exist, you have to be able to explain the data we have right now.  You and your sources can't do that.
So let's summerize.  The Kuiper Belt exists, it has been directly observed, it refutes your argument completely.  The Oort cloud, while not directly observed, is the best explaination for some long period coments.  More evidence for it's existance is being found all the time.  Can it's existance be overturned by new evidence?  Yes it can, but we have found nothing to refute it yet, until we do, it is the best explaination available for some long period comets.  

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:30 PM on September 8, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Oort cloud, while not directly observed, is the best explaination for some long period coments.

So, if I can come up with an idea that explains something, even if I haven't seen it or proven it yet, I can use it in an argument here and you'll believe me?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:10 AM on September 9, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Kuiper Belt exists, it has been directly observed, it refutes your argument completely.

The Kuiper Belt is an area of space, not a physical object like the Milky Way, etc.  I'm sure I could pick a random area of space an eventually find something in it too, doesn't mean I'm a genius.

In the "Kuiper Belt" many small planets (Nasa's wording, not mine) have been found.  Pluto and Charon are thought to be part of this belt (from Nasa, not me).

Maybe I understand the word comet, incorrectly... are comets planets?  

OK, finally, we seem to be at an impasse.  You're waiting for someone to disprove evolution.  Any ACTUAL arguments against evolution are answered with theories that could explain away the problem and are always tagged with "it's the best answer available".

I'm waiting form someone to disprove the Bible.  The only actual argument seems to be that the supposed age of the earth doesn't coincide with the dating of Genesis.  Yet creationists know that Adam and Eve were created as full grown adults.  Too anyone that scientifically observed them at the time they would've appeared to have been alive for years even though they were just created.  We know that all the plants and animals were created as full grown species.  Same thing.  From these things we infer that the planet and universe were created as mature objects also appearing to be of a mature age.

What does creationism do that evolution can't?  It is the "best answer available" for how life STARTED.  Creationists base their beliefs on the Bible.  Biblical pre-knowledge of scientific fact (see my Were the Jews? post), accuracy of prophecy, and secular and archaelogical writings and findings all have proven it to be true.  

Let me ask you this... if you die tomorrow, do you have a soul?  Is there life beyond this?  If not, how much time of your limited, pointless life have you wated posting on this board?  Don't you have better things to do with no hope of a future?  With not hope of an afterlife, we simply exist to eat and mate.  Everything else is superficial.  Survival of the fittest and all that.  My Christianity makes me a better man.  Your evolution makes you a smarter protozoa.  Congratulations.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:45 AM on September 9, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 09:45 AM on September 9, 2005 :
In the "Kuiper Belt" many small planets (Nasa's wording, not mine) have been found.  Pluto and Charon are thought to be part of this belt (from Nasa, not me).


Got a reference for that?  I can believe they called them planitesimals.


Maybe I understand the word comet, incorrectly... are comets planets?  


Were Pluto and Charon to be deflected into the inner solar system, they would indeed appear to be comets.


I'm waiting form someone to disprove the Bible.  


If the universe does not agree with your interpretation of the Bible, that would appear to be your problem, not the Bible's.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:46 AM on September 9, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 09:10 AM on September 9, 2005 :
The Oort cloud, while not directly observed, is the best explaination for some long period coments.

So, if I can come up with an idea that explains something, even if I haven't seen it or proven it yet, I can use it in an argument here and you'll believe me?



1992QB1 was the first detected object (other than Pluto and Charon) with a Kuiper belt orbit, the cataloged number is now many hundreds.   High resolution studies with Hubble confirm that the actual number  (that is the population of these objects not presently detectable with ground based observations) is consistent with the number predicted based on the the theory that the Kuiper belt is the reservoir of short term comets.

Sedna is the first object detected with an Oort cloud orbit.  Given the relative difficulty of detecting these vs. KBOs, it will probably be another 10-15 years before appreciable numbers are cataloged.  So, the first Oort cloud object has been seen.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:10 PM on September 9, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is also no known way for comets to be created.  (From my original post).  

Everyone keeps arguing that all of these short-term comets are coming from the Oort cloud (thoretical) and the Kuiper Belt (every Nasa and NSF article I've read keeps using the terms comet-like or canidate, not comet).  Back to my original point.  How are comets CREATED?  You're argument that these comets exist in these areas and have existed there for billions of years automatically suggests that these are NOT short-term comets.  Again, short-term comets have a life of ten to twenty five thousand years.


Were Pluto and Charon to be deflected into the inner solar system, they would indeed appear to be comets.


APPEAR to be.  Ok, I'll accept that.  

If the universe does not agree with your interpretation of the Bible, that would appear to be your problem, not the Bible's.


Interpretation?  Who's interpreting?  I'm reading it.  The Bible does not have a problem with the universe as it exists today.  The Bible does not have a problem with the fact that the universe APPEARS to be billions of years old.  (I've already covered that)  Again, no one has disproven the Bible and no one has proven evolution.  Show me the missing link.  Show me fossils of our ancestors evolving from some completely different species.  Show me some current evolutionary organ that we do not know the purpose of yet.   Humans have supposed to have been around for sixty thousand years according to evolution (give or take).  We have fossils of humans.  We have fossils of other "older" species.  If it's a billions year process, why are there no gradually evolving fossils?  You say you've proven things that happened billions of years ago.   Just a few tens of thousands of years ago, mankind supposedly burst upon the seen.  From what?  Monkeys?  Algae?  Sloths?  Evolution is a slow process, it must be painfully obvious as they show us the very fossils that link us to our previous incarnation.  And surely we've continued to evolve right?  Evolutionists want to claim that we all must've evolved the same way because we have so many genes, DNA, whatever in common.  We must've all been created the same way.  Creationists have been arguing for this viewpoint for years.  After all, we all co-exist on the same planet and must therefore all be able to live and survive on it.  We all must have some similarities.  Duh.  Still looking for the missing link.  Howard Sterns doesn't count.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:53 PM on September 9, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 12:53 PM on September 9, 2005 :
There is also no known way for comets to be created.  (From my original post).  


Collisions between Kupier belt planitesmials.

Everyone keeps arguing that all of these short-term comets are coming from the Oort cloud (thoretical) and the Kuiper Belt (every Nasa and NSF article I've read keeps using the terms comet-like or canidate, not comet).  


Short term are Kuiper belt, long term Oort cloud.

Back to my original point.  How are comets CREATED?  


For a long time, it was thought that gravitational interaction was the main mechanism, and it still may be a major one, in 1974 for instance, Jupiter kicked an object that became comet Wild-2 into a sun approaching orbit.  

But after getting close up views of several comet nuclei, there is a growing sense that their shapes conform to a collisional mechanism rather than strictly accretional.


You're argument that these comets exist in these areas and have existed there for billions of years automatically suggests that these are NOT short-term comets.  Again, short-term comets have a life of ten to twenty five thousand years.


They do after they get moved into a sun approaching orbit.  Remember that this process has been observed.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:50 PM on September 9, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 12:53 PM on September 9, 2005 :
Interpretation?  Who's interpreting?  I'm reading it.  The Bible does not have a problem with the universe as it exists today.  The Bible does not have a problem with the fact that the universe APPEARS to be billions of years old.  


And it doesn't have a problem with it actually being billions of years old either, but you do.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:51 PM on September 9, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is a question for Demon38...

How are dinosaur fossils dated???
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 3:30 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from camaroracer214 at 3:30 PM on September 10, 2005 :
This is a question for Demon38...

How are dinosaur fossils dated???



Dating Dinosaur fossils PDF


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:58 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Can you show me some evidence for transition fossils?  In the pdf from Apoapsis, it shows the oldest fossils further down the geologic column  than younger ones.  I have seen many pictures with petrified trees standing straight up through several layers of this geologic column.  What can this tell us?  And I know that you will all ask for proof of these trees, and it's on its way.  I just have to find it once again, but trust me, it's coming.  Also, can you tell me how they date the layers of the earth?  Thanks.
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 4:28 PM on September 11, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How are dinosaur fossils dated???

How are dinosaur fossils dated....By superpostion, their relative position in the geological column.  And by radiometric dating of the strata they are found in.  Where's the problem?

Can you show me some evidence for transition fossils?

Look in any book of paleontology or any museum of natural history.  

I have seen many pictures with petrified trees standing straight up through several layers of this geologic column.

Polystrate trees are easily explained by geology, they pose no problems for modern geology.  Polystrate trees tell us that they were buried quickly, they don't extend into multiple strata of the geologic column.  Many creationists sites try to pass this off as a problem for modern geology, but in truth, they are not.  As far back as the 19th century geologists understood how polystrate fossils formed, by quick burial, see here:
PolystrateTrees
So what's your point...

As to clearly transitional fossils, they are plentiful.  And they are best explained by the theory of evolution.  Take a look at Archaeopteryx and Acanthostega for some excellent examples of transitonal fossils.  Then look at the line of reptile to mammal transitionals, which is an shows how they evolved into mammals very nicely.  Then try to explain the line by any other theory than evolution...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:17 PM on September 11, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This pretty much sums it up.  And if you care to reply, argue the science, not the scientist.

There is a growing consensus that Archaeopteryx, a bird whose fossils have been found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia (West Germany), was indeed capable of flight. The claim, however, that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between reptiles and birds simply won't fly.

Recent fossil discoveries and recent research on Archaeopteryx argue strongly against the suggestion that it is transitional between reptiles and birds. The rocks in which fossils of Archaeopteryx have been found are designated Upper Jurassic, and thus are dated at about 150 million years on the standard evolutionary geological time scale. Ninety years ago, with reference to Archaeopteryx and to two other ancient birds, Ichthyornis and Hesperornis, Beddard declared, "So emphatically were all these creatures birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains."1 During the years since publication of Beddard's book, no better candidate as an intermediate between reptiles and birds has appeared, and so, in the eyes of its beholders, Archaeopteryx has become more and more reptile-like until it is now fashionable to declare that Archaeopteryx was hardly more than a feathered reptile. In 90 years, Archaeopteryx has thus evolved from a creature so emphatically bird-like its reptilian ancestry was barely hinted at into a creature some evolutionists declare to be nothing more than a reptile with feathers!

What is the true status of Archaeopteryx? Was it a transitional form between reptiles and birds? First, the general nature of the evidence: The sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) without a trace of ancestors, and the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors, proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred. Quarrels about disputable cases such as Archaeopteryx are really pointless. Furthermore, there are three other basically different types of flying creatures—flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying mammals (bats). It would be strange, indeed, even incomprehensible, that millions of years of evolution of these three basically different types of flying creatures, each involving the remarkable transition of a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms. If all of that evolution has occurred, our museums should contain scores, if not hundreds or thousands, of fossils of intermediate forms in each case. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!

Archaeopteryx had an impressive array of features that immediately identify it as a bird, whatever else may be said about it. It had perching feet. Several of its fossils bear the impression of feathers. These feathers were identical to those of modern birds in every respect. The primary feathers of non-flying birds are distinctly different from those of flying birds. Archaeopteryx had the feathers of flying birds,2 had the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing, and an especially robust furcula (wishbone). Furthermore, there was nothing in the anatomy of Archaeopteryx that would have prevented it being a powered flyer.3 No doubt Archaeopteryx was a feathered creature that flew. It was a bird!

It has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs.4 Research on various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question is bird-like, not reptile-like. When the cranium of the London specimen was removed from the limestone and studied, it was shown to be bird-like, not reptile-like.5 Benton has stated that "details of the brain case and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird, but an offshoot from the early avian stem."6 In this same paper, Benton states that the quadrate (the bone in the jaw that articulates with the squamosal of the skull) in Archaeopteryx was singleheaded as in reptiles. Using a newly devised technique, computed tomography, Haubitz, et al, established that the quadrate of the Eichstatt specimen of Archaepoteryx was double-headed and thus similar to the condition of modern birds,7 rather than single-headed, as stated by Benton.

L.D. Martin and co-workers have established that neither the teeth nor the ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod dinosaurs—the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later) toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of dinosaurs.8 John Ostrom, a strong advocate of a dinosaurian ancestry for birds, had claimed that the pubis of Archaeopteryx pointed downward—an intermediate position between that of coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which points forward, and that of birds, which points backward. A.D. Walker, in more recent studies, asserts that Ostrom's interpretation is wrong, and that the pubis of Archaeopteryx was oriented in a bird-like position.9 Further, Tarsitano and Hecht criticize various aspects of Ostrom's hypothesis of a dinosaurian origin of birds, arguing that Ostrom had misinterpreted the homologies of the limbs of Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs.10

A.D. Walker has presented an analysis of the ear region of Archaeopteryx that shows, contrary to previous studies, that this region is very similar to the otic region of modern birds.11 J.R. Hinchliffe, utilizing modern isotopic techniques on chick embryos, claims to have established that the "hand" of birds consists of digits II, III and IV, while the digits of the "hand" of theropod dinosaurs consist of digits I, II, and III.

Scales are flat horny plates; feathers are very complex in structure, consisting of a central shaft from which radiate barbs and barbules. Barbules are equipped with tiny hooks which lock onto the barbs and bind the feather surface into a flat, strong, flexible vane. Feathers and scales arise from different layers of the skin. Furthermore, the development of a feather is extremely complex, and fundamentally different from that of a scale. Feathers, as do hairs, but unlike scales, develop from follicles. A hair,, however, is a much simpler structure than a feather. The developing feather is protected by a horny sheath, and forms around a bloody, conical, inductive dermal core. Not only is the developing feather sandwiched between the sheath and dermal core, it is complex in structure. Development of the cells that will become the mature feather involves complex processes. Cells migrate and split apart in highly specific patterns to form the complex arrangement of barbs and barbules.12

Philip Regal attempts to imagine how feathers may have developed from scales.13 Regal presents a series of hypothetical events whereby the elongation of body scales on reptiles, as an adaptive response to excessive solar heat, eventually produced feathers. What we are left to believe is that a series of genetic mistakes, or mutations, just happened somehow to result in a sequence of incredible events that not only converted a simple horny plate into the tremendously complex and marvelously engineered structure of a feather, but completely reorganized the simple method of development of a scale into the highly complex process necessary to produce a feather. What an incredible faith in the blind forces of evolution! Regal's paper simply adds another "Just-so" story to evolutionary scenarios, completely devoid of empirical support.

Recent events cast even further doubt on Archaeopteryx as a transitional form. If the claims of Sankar Chatterjee prove to be valid, then certainly Archaeopteryx could not be the ancestral bird, and dinosaurs could not be ancestral to birds. Chatterjee and his co-workers at Texas Tech University claim to have found two crow-sized fossils of a bird near Post, Texas, in rocks supposedly 225 million years old—thus allegedly 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx and as old as the first dinosaurs. Totally contrary to what evolutionists would expect for such a fossil bird, however, Chatterjee claims that his bird is even more bird-like than Archaeopteryx! In contrast to Archaeopteryx, this bird had a keel-like breastbone and hollow bones. In most other respects, it was similar to Archaeopteryx.14 If evolutionary assumptions are correct, this bird should have been much more reptile-like than Archaeopteryx. In fact, he shouldn't even exist!

Another threat to the notion that Archaeopteryx was intermediate between reptiles and birds are the claims of Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British astronomer, fellow astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe, and Israeli scientist Lee Spetner, based on detailed photographic evidence, that Archaeopteryx is a fraud.15,16 They maintain that an artificial matrix was placed on a reptilian fossil and that modern feathers were used to impress the matrix, to leave a likeness of fossil feathers. Scientists of the British Museum of Natural History have defended the authenticity of the fossil.17 If the allegations of Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, and Spetner turn out to be correct, it would be a devastating blow to evolutionists. If the fossil is a forgery, however, it would have to be a devilishly clever one, because the forger would not only have to fake the feathers, but also somehow emplace the many bird-like features described in this article.

The conclusion which appears to be most reasonable is that Archaeopteryx was a true bird, remarkably isolated from any alleged reptilian progenitor and other birds. A discussion of other features of Archaeopteryx, such as its teeth and clawed wings, may be found in Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record.18

References

 1. F.E. Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds, Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1898, p. 160.
 2. Alan Feduccia and H.B Tordoff, Science 203:1020(1979).
 3. S.L. Olson and Alan Feduccia, Nature 278:247(1979).
 4. A.J. Charig, A New Look at Dinosaurs, Heinemann, London, 1979, p. 139.
 5. K.N. Whetstone, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology [2(4):439(1983)].
 6. M.J. Benton, Nature 305:99(1983).
 7. B. Haubitz, M. Prokop, W. Döhring, J.H. Ostrom, and P. Welinhofer, Paleobiology 14(2):206 (1988).
 8. L.D. Martin, J.D. Stewart, and K.N. Whetstone, The Auk 97:86 (1980).
 9. A.D. Walker, Geological Magazine 117:595 (1980).
10. S. Tarsitano and M.K. Hecht, Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society 69:149 (1980).
11. A.D. Walker, as described in Peter Dodson, "International Archaeopteryx Conference," Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 5(2):177, June 1985.
12. A.M. Lucas and P.R. Slettenhein, Avian Anatomy: Integument. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1972.
13. P.J. Regal, The Quarterly Review of Biology 50:35 (1975).
14. S. Weisburd, Science News, August 16, 1986, p. 103; Tim Beardsley, Nature 322:677 (1986).
15. Gail Vines, New Scientist, 14 March 1985, p. 3; Ted Nield, New Scientist, 1 August 1985, p. 49.
16. Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Archaeopteryx: The Primordial Bird. A Case of Fossil Forgery, Christopher Davies Publishers, Swansea, 1986.
17. A.J. Charig, F. Greenaway, A.C. Milner, C.A. Walker, and P.J. Whybrow, Science 232:622(1986).
18. D.T. Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, Creation-Life Publishers, El Cajon, CA, 1985.




-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 8:58 PM on September 11, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is a growing consensus that Archaeopteryx, a bird whose fossils have been found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia (West Germany), was indeed capable of flight. The claim, however, that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between reptiles and birds simply won't fly.

I'm getting tired of refuting this chestnut.  Archaeopteryx was pronounced a bird because of the feathers it had.  Up until that time no other animal was known to have feathers, they were considered a defining characteristic of birds.  Since that time, we now know that dinosaurs had feathers.  Whether archaeopteryx was capable of flight or not doesn't change the fact that it had more reptilioan characteristics than avian characteristics.  I had this discussion before, so here's a link from a previous post I made:
Archaeopteryx

"It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered."

Archaeopteryx was clearly more reptilian than avian.  Look at it's characteristics:
Like a reptile it had socketed teeth, no bird has socketed teeth.  
It had a reptilian mouth and jaws, not a beak like a bird.
It had unfused trunk vertebrae, like a reptile, birds have  fused trunk vertabrea.
Like pubic shafts with plate like and angled transverse cross sections which some dinosaurs have but no birds.
Elongated cerebral hemispheres like reptiles and unlike birds.
Archy's neck attaches to the skull from the rear like dinosaurs, unlike birds whos neck attaches from below.
Reptilian cervical vertebrae, unlike a birds.
A long bony tail with free vertebae, completely unlike a bird.
Slender, reptilian ribs, unjointed and they don't articulate with the sternum, completely different from birds.
Reptilian pelvic girdle and femur joint, unlike a bird.
The pelvic girdle attaches to 6 vertebrae, like reptiles instead of 11-23 like birds.
Reptilian hands with flexible wrist, unlike birds.
Nasal opening like a reptiles, not a birds.
Like a reptile, Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles.
Claws on unfused digits, no bird has 3 claws or unfused digits.
Like reptiles and unlike birds, The fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg.
Like reptiles, they have gastralia (ventral ribs) which birds don't.
Looking at strictly avian characteristics,
Opposable hallux, birds have this dinosaurs don't but some therapod dinosaurs come close to this structure.
Backward pointing pubis.
Slightly larger brain than therapod dinosaurs, more birdlike, but still proportionally smaller than modern bird brains.

And of course feathers are a shared characteristic with dinosaurs since clearly feathered dinosaurs have now been found.

That's about it.  Based on comparison of characteristics. Archy is more reptilian
than avian.  But since it has both reptilian and avian characteristics, it is clearly transitional, what else would you call it?  Evolution is the BEST explaination for this evidence.  In order to claim that it is NOT transitional, one must explain why the strictly reptilian features are not reptilian.  
So now how do you explain this fact, Archy was more reptilian than avian.

What is the true status of Archaeopteryx? Was it a transitional form between reptiles and birds?

Yes, it's physical structure clearly marks it as transitional between reptiles and birds.

First, the general nature of the evidence: The sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) without a trace of ancestors, and the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors, proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred.

What this has to do with Archaeopteryx, is beyond me.  But it is also completely untrue.
Recent fossil finds show that all complex invertebrates did NOT appear fully formed, there are clear lines that show evolution.  Fish did NOT appear suddenly either, there are ancestors that bridge the gap from invertebrates to the first vertebrates.  I see you have done no research, you ignore the evidence to prop up your myths.

Quarrels about disputable cases such as Archaeopteryx are really pointless.

Yes, they are.  The evidence is plain, Archy had more reptilian features than avian, it is clearly transitional.

Furthermore, there are three other basically different types of flying creatures—flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying mammals (bats). It would be strange, indeed, even incomprehensible, that millions of years of evolution of these three basically different types of flying creatures, each involving the remarkable transition of a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms.

And of course transitional forms for all three are present, you just can't be bothered to look them up, guess you're afraid of what you will find.

If all of that evolution has occurred, our museums should contain scores, if not hundreds or thousands, of fossils of intermediate forms in each case. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these
creatures!


So you don't understand how fossilization works either, why am I not surprised.  A very tiny percentage of life becomes fossilized.  So no we wouldn't expect museums to contain scores of any kind of fossils.  The problem creationists have is that ANY clearly transitional fossils destroy there claim that life was created unchanged.  Archaeopteryx is one such fossil that destroys their claim.  Acanthostega is another.  The line of reptile to mammal fossils is another, the hits just keep on coming.

Archaeopteryx had an impressive array of features that immediately identify it as a bird, whatever else may be said about it.

But it had more features that identified it as a reptile.  See the list above.

Archaeopteryx had the feathers of flying birds,2 had the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing,

Untrue, from here:
ArchyFeathers

" Speakman & Thomas (1994) compared the asymmetry of some of the flight feathers of Archae (flight feathers 4, 5 and 6) with those of modern flying and flightless birds and the isolated feather from Solnhofen. They found that the average asymmetry for Archae feathers was 1.25, which was lower than that of modern flying birds (lowest around 2.2), but which overlapped that of modern flightless birds. "

So no, they did not have identical feathers to modern flying birds.  Once again, your research sucks.

It has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs.4 Research on various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question is bird-like, not reptile-like.

Outright lie.  

When the cranium of the London specimen was removed from the limestone and studied, it was shown to be bird-like, not reptile-like.5 Benton has stated that "details of the brain case and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird, but an offshoot from the early avian stem."

Outright lie.  The cranium in London was NOT more birdlike and of course, like most creationists you only post part of Benton's quote, it's the only way you can make your case, but when the entire quote is posted, it shows how wrong you are.
From here:
ArchyHead
"To reconstruct the original quote: "Details of the braincase and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird, but an offshoot from the early avian stem." (Benton 1983, p. 99). However, whether or not Archaeopteryx is the ancestral bird does not detract from the fact that is a transitional form. Transitional because it possesses characteristics in common with reptiles and also characteristics in common with birds. In other words, it possesses a mosaic of characters, some obviously reptilian (such as the long bony tail with many free vertebrae and the sacrum with 6 vertebrae; some transitional, such as the pelvic girdle and the length of the arms; and some bird-like, such as feathers and an opposable big toe). In fact, a recent study of the new, seventh, Archaeopteryx specimen by Elzanowski & Wellnhofer (1996) has highlighted this mozaic nature by documenting that the skull has avian (palatine + maxillary, hook shaped choanal process with a long pterygoid wing) and theropod (single vomer, and hook shaped jugal process of the ectopterygoid) traits. The transitional nature of Archaeopteryx is due to its morphology, not its taxonomy."

Notice when we post the entire quote, Benton says "the skull has avian (palatine + maxillary, hook shaped choanal process with a long pterygoid wing) and theropod (single vomer, and hook shaped jugal process of the ectopterygoid) traits.", clearly stating that the cranium is transitioinal between birds and reptiles.  What's your comment on your dishonesty here, Benton is not saying what your claiming he's saying...

L.D. Martin and co-workers have established that neither the teeth nor the ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod dinosaurs—

As to teeth, from here:
AvianTeeth
"The expression of tooth buds in the bird embryo has a simple evolutionary explanation, since it suggests that the ancestors of modern birds possessed teeth and that this character has been supressed in modern birds. The presence of tooth buds in the embryos of organisms which do not possess teeth in the adult is a difficulty for anti-evolutionists, since why should a character be expressed that is never used in the organism? Some fossil birds exhibit a reduction in the number of bones which have teeth. Both Hesperornis and Baptornis lack teeth on the premaxilla (Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs have teeth on both the maxilla and premaxilla). Not only that, Hesperornis has a beak, but on the upper jaw only (Gingerich 1975). It therefore has half a beak and teeth. A good example of a morphologicaly intermediate structure between toothed birds which lack a beak, and beaked, toothless birds."

So how do you explain this, without using evolution?

Scales are flat horny plates; feathers are very complex in structure,...

So what, dinosaurs evolved feathers, modern birds inherited them from dinosaurs.  How do you explain dinosaurs with feathers?

Recent events cast even further doubt on Archaeopteryx as a transitional form. If the claims of Sankar Chatterjee prove to be valid, then certainly Archaeopteryx could not be the ancestral bird

I see, you have no idea what "transitional" means.  Who said Archaeopteryx was ancestral to modern birds?  Not me, and not palepntologists.  Whether it was ancestral or not does not change the fact that it is transitional.

Chatterjee and his co-workers at Texas Tech University claim to have found two crow-sized fossils of a bird near Post, Texas, in rocks supposedly 225 million years old—thus allegedly 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx and as old as the first dinosaurs. Totally contrary to what evolutionists would expect for such a fossil bird, however, Chatterjee claims that his bird is even more bird-like than Archaeopteryx

Chatterjee's finds are NOT as old as the oldest dinosaurs and that they are older than archaeopteryx does nothing to change Archy's transitional status, you are the only one claiming that Archaeopteryx is ancestral to modern birds.  From here:
FirstBird

"For years, Archaeopteryx was considered to be the oldest bird known, but its position has recently been usurped by Protoavis texensis from the Late Triassic Dockum Group of Texas, predating Archaeopteryx by 75 million years (Chatterjee 1987a, 1991, 1994, 1995, in press; Kurochkin 1995; Peters 1994). Identification of Archaeopteryx as a bird is a simple task because Archaeopteryx possesses feathers. The recognition of Protoavis as a primitive bird requires a thorough knowledge of comparative anatomy of the skeleton because feather impressions were not found with the specimens. Resembling a small nonavian theropod in the rear, Protoavis reveals its avian identity in the front portions of the skeleton. It is an excellent example of mosaic evolution, in which some conservative ancestral characters of contemporary nonavian theropods occur with the advanced characters typical of later birds. This mingling of primitive and advanced characteristics seems to have been a common evolutionary pattern in the origination of higher groups of vertebrates."

And let's see what else Chatterjee has to say about the evolution of birds, from here:
Chatterjee

"Thus, the new avian odyssey begins some 225 million years ago, when Protoavis took to the air over tropical Texas forests. This is the beginning of the age of birds. Throughout the Jurassic and Cretaceous, birds diversified, perfected their flight maneuvers, and adapted to various niches during the continental fragmentation. The road from Protoavis to pigeon requires a long evolutionary march, with frequent roundabouts and blind alleys. It is paved with the temporary dominance of several different extinct lineages until the Late Cretaceous, when Neornithes (modern birds) emerged. Most Cretaceous birds, such as enantiornithes, hesperornithiforms, Patagopteryx, and other less well-known groups, disappeared about 65 million years ago, along with nonavian dinosaurs. Rising Phoenix-like from the ashes of this catastrophe, the neornithine lineage underwent an explosive adaptive radiation of modern forms during the Tertiary."

So another source you site agrees with me, birds evolved, Archaeopteryx was transtional.  When are you ever going to do some real research, when are you ever going to try and support your claims without being dishonest?

Another threat to the notion that Archaeopteryx was intermediate between reptiles and birds are the claims of Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British astronomer, fellow astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe, and Israeli scientist Lee Spetner, based on detailed photographic evidence, that Archaeopteryx is a fraud.

Hahaha!!!  Come on!  You just went through an exhaustive (but incorrect) disertation on why the experts dispute Archaeopteryx being transitional, then you throw this in here???
On one hand you claim the evidence supports your claim, then on the other you claim the evidence is a fraud?!?!  How about a little consistency!  But the fraud claims were all ready refuted (as your lousy researched information has been).  Even AnswersinGenesis agrees that Archy IS NOT a hoax:
AnswersInGenesis

"Both these expert scientists totally reject the charge of forgery. Dr Menton points out that the Archaeopteryx bones have tiny bumps where the feathers were attached to the bones by ligaments. This was unexpected, so impossible to attribute to a forgery. So it is simply wrong to say that the feathers are just imprints added to a dino skeleton.
Also, Alan Fedducia, in his encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds,3 cites a number of reasons why Fred Hoyle is completely wrong. For example, limestone often contains dendritic (tree-like) patterns formed by precipitating manganese dioxide, and they are unique as are snowflakes. Some of them are on both the slab and counterslab containing the Solnhofen Archaeopteryx fossil, including some on top of the feather imprints. Alan Charig et al. found that when he backwardly printed a negative photograph of the counterslab dendrite patterns, they match perfectly with the corresponding dendrites of the main slab. Therefore the dendrites must have formed on the bedding plane before the slab was split."

The world of science agrees, Archaeopteryx is not a hoax or fraud.  The science of biology agrees that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil.  And I would have to think the readers of your post agree that you can't do honest research to save your soul.




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:46 AM on September 12, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see, you have no idea what "transitional" means.  Who said Archaeopteryx was ancestral to modern birds?  Not me, and not palepntologists.  Whether it was ancestral or not does not change the fact that it is transitional.


Ok, so you are saying that Archaeopteryx was "transitional" between dinosaurs and modern birds, yet is not an ancestor of modern birds.  That makes no sense.  You're saying A became B became C, but B did not produce C.  How in the world does that happen?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:10 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bird evolution: discontinuities and reversals
by John Woodmorappe

Summary
Theropod dinosaurs, widely accepted as the ancestors of birds, do not show a step-by-step gradational change to Archaeopteryx, the first known bird.  The vast majority of traits reverse themselves at least once in the cladistic sequence.  Those traits that do change in a unidirectional manner often show large jumps in the sequence.  Ironically, the most bird-like of theropods (including the much touted feathered ‘theropod,’ Caudipteryx), are now apparently confirmed (under evolutionary presuppositions) to be nothing more than ‘secondarily’ flightless descendants of Archaeopteryx!  Theropods fail as stratomorphic intermediates, occurring much too late in the stratigraphic record to serve as the ancestors of birds.  The course of volant (flying) bird evolution itself is also full of discontinuities and trait reversals.  Late Mesozoic birds fail to display a smooth connection either backwards to Archaeopteryx or forward to modern birds.

The alleged evolutionary transformation of reptiles to birds is fraught with numerous subjective interpretations and conflicting opinions of evolutionary descent.1–3  The fashionable theory is that birds evolved from theropods (carnivorous dinosaurs), but the evolutionist Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, called it ‘one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.’4

A recently published, comprehensive cladistic study of bird evolution by Maryanska et al.5 only adds fuel to the fire.  Based on analysis of the many relevant specimens housed in Poland, Mongolia, and Russia, and relying on 195 skeletal characters of theropods and early birds, it facilitates a thorough examination of the relationship between theropods and early birds.  Another recently published study, by Zhou and Zhang,6 based on 201 skeletal characters, complements the first.  It allows for the tracing of avian evolution itself, spanning the supposed evolutionary continuum that exists between the dromaeosaurids as outgroup, on the one hand, and modern birds, on the other, as the crown group.  (Note that the outgroup is immediately outside the inferred evolutionary progression, and is used as a reference point for the ‘primitive’ condition, whereas the crown group consists of the most derived members of the inferred evolutionary progression).

Typical evolutionistic claims supportive of ‘transitional forms’ are based on selective evidence—usually a gradational appearance of outward traits, or else a progression of only one to a few characters.  By contrast, the analysis of the data used for the construction of cladograms allows for the simultaneous comparison of all the relevant traits that differ between ‘primitive’ and ‘derived’ creatures.  The present work analyzes the new studies, adhering to the same methodology employed in earlier studies of alleged evolutionary transitions: pre-human to human,7 mammal-like reptile to mammal,8 fish to amphibian,9 and land mammal to whale.10

Method of analysis
Although both the choice of characters and some aspects of their scoring involve a certain element of subjectivity, the data sets used for cladistic analyses allow for a relatively objective, semi-quantitative analysis of alleged evolutionary changes.  As usual with cladistic analyses, the vast majority of anatomical traits are scored as a present-absent (0 or 1) polarity in each organism.  Only a few traits get scored according to an incremental appearance of a trait (0, 1, 2, 3, etc.).


Table 1. The inferred course of evolution from theropods to Archaeopteryx and back to land-limited creatures.

In Table 1, the ‘All Traits’ sums up the score of all of the usable traits up to 195; the score is then normalized to 100.11  The second column discriminates the progressive traits from the nonprogressive ones.12  An identical methodology is used for the corresponding values in Tables 2–4.  However, the scoring of reversing traits is modified according to the more complex branching patterns discussed in successive paragraphs.  That is, a trait is considered to be reversing only if most to all of the members of the advanced sister-group cluster have a lower value for a trait then the individual taxon that comprises the primitive sister group.13

In the cladistic analyses cited here, the organisms are lined up as ‘signposts’ leading to the successive emergence of avian traits, but with no necessary connotation of ancestor-descendant relationships.14  The clades and their respective constituents are listed in Tables 1–4.  In Table 1, four theropod groups serve as one reference point (the outgroup) and modern birds (not shown in the cited study, nor in Table 1) the other.  In order to avoid the circular reasoning15 behind any assumption of a common evolutionary process grouping a set of traits (and then saying that the resulting cladogram supports that inferred evolutionary sequence), each of the 195 traits in the original study have been equally weighted and reckoned to be independent from each other.  Note that the Clade Avialae (Table 1) corresponds to the vernacular term ‘birds.’16  The order of the clades shown in Table 1 is reversed from the original data so that the inferred course of evolution proceeds upward, in synchrony with the course of evolution showed in Tables 2–4.  Extant birds, which include the duck and the chicken, are prefixed with (Class) Aves in Tables 2 and 4.  These five birds constitute the crown group.


Table 2. The entire course of avian evolution, emphasizing volant birds.

Each listed taxon in Table 1 is the primitive sister group of the entire assemblage of taxons listed above it.  In contrast, the course of volant (flying) bird evolution (Table 2) has a less straightforward, nested branching sequence.  Only the six basal taxons each constitute a primitive sister group of all the combined taxons above them.  The Gobipteryx-Cathayornis cluster (itself complexly branched within) is the sister group of the Patagopteryx-modern-bird cluster (itself complexly branched within), with Confuciusornis inferred to be the primitive sister group of both combined clusters.  In Table 3, the simple sister-group relationship of each basal taxon relative to its combined successors (identical to just the lower part of Table 1) eliminates the need for sketching the branching patterns.  However, the complex branching relationship that is inherent to the closing stages of avian evolution (Table 4) forces the addition of these patterns as had been done in Table 2.

A major difficulty in using the second dataset4 is the very large fraction of information that is missing.  In order to minimize biases introduced into the Avian Indices, two different approaches were used in evaluating the available data.  In order to preserve information pertinent to the entire course of volant bird evolution, the entire sequence from Dromaeosauridae all the way to modern birds was retained despite the severe loss of data (only 37 of 201 traits found useable, of which 21 were nonreversing), and presented as Table 2.17  Owing to the massive loss of data, combined with the fact that the Gobipteryx-Cathayornis clade had accounted for a disproportionate share of this loss, this clade was eliminated from further consideration.  The remaining information was divided into Early (Table 3) and Late (Table 4) volant bird evolution.  This greatly minimized the loss of data, as each dataset could now be normalized according to only the relatively few absent data points encountered over the short interval of its span.  In both Table 3 and 4, 131 of the original 201 data points now qualify for analysis.

Analysis of theropod-avian relationships

Table 3. The emergence of early birds: subset of Table 2.

Throughout the theropod-bird sequence (Table 1), there does appear to be an almost monotonic progressive emergence of avian traits throughout the sequence.  There is, however, an apparent reversal in the Avian index in the theropods immediately preceding the first known commonly acknowledged bird, Archaeopteryx.  Moreover, a closer look at the data indicates that the apparent smoothness of the overall progression is misleading.  To begin with, as always, the normalization process itself favors the evolutionist.18  Furthermore, the inclusion of reversed traits tends to smooth over the overall sequence.19  A striking 140 of all of the 195 traits reverse at least once, and this large total rises to 145 if the four outgroup theropod groups are included.  Furthermore, of the 140 within-sequence reversing traits, 64 of them do so at least twice.  Consequently, the majority of key avian traits do not progress towards the avian condition!  Instead, what we have is a highly variegated collection of avian-reptilian mosaics.

Now consider only the progressive traits.  This sequence is characterized by sharp jumps in the presumed acquisition of avian traits.  Note, for instance, the almost doubling of the Avian Index with the respective emergence of the Eumaniraptora and ‘C’ clades.  There is also a hefty discontinuity between Dromaeosauridae and Troodontidae.  The two clades that immediately precede Archaeopteryx are, ironically, more birdlike in skeletal morphology (with reference to modern birds) than Archaeopteryx itself!

Evolution in the wrong direction

Table 4. The most recent stages (including crown group) of bird evolution: subset of Table 2.

The post Archaeopteryx part of the sequence (Table 1), suggested in this manner by only a few earlier investigators,20 finds renewed support.  Consider the irony that it entails: certain nonvolant ‘theropods’ (the oviraptorids), including the much-ballyhooed ‘feathered theropod’ Caudipteryx, turn out to be more like modern birds than the undoubtedly volant Archaeopteryx:

‘Some skull features observed in oviraptorids (skulls of other oviraptorids are not sufficiently known to confirm the presence of these features) support our hypothesis about the avialan status of Oviraptorosauria … .  This set of traits is absent in non-avialan theropods but is present in advanced birds … .  In spite of these similarities to volant birds, oviraptorosaurs do not show any evident flight adaptations in their postcrania [emphasis added].’21

(Note that the adjective avialan refers to the clade avialidae, which, as noted earlier, includes all extinct and living birds).  The hodge-podge of avian and nonavian traits encountered in oviraptorosaurs can only be explained away by invoking a separate evolutionary lineage for oviraptorosaurs off the main lineage of birds that begins with Archaeopteryx, followed by numerous evolutionary reversals within this would-be ‘side branch’ of evolution:

‘If this pattern of relationships is feasible, oviraptorosaurs were most parsimoniously secondarily unable to fly.  Consequently, some postcranial character states of oviraptorosaurs are recognized by the analysis as reversals.  Examples of such reversals are [several traits are listed which supposedly indicate that oviraptorosaurs “devolved” back to a flightless state].  These reversions apparently accompanied the change from the flying to ground-dwelling mode of life.’22

One is hardly surprised to learn that this evolutionary storytelling is not exactly supported by the details of the fossil record:

‘At the moment, it is difficult to propose a scenario depicting the successive stages of evolution from volant birds to flightless oviraptorosaurs.  Nevertheless, character evidence accumulated indicates that such a radical change of adaptation—from the flying to ground-dwelling mode of life—may have occurred for the first time early in avialan evolution.’7

Ironically, it seems that the evolutionists have now dug themselves into an even deeper evidentiary hole.  Not only are they lacking a step-by-step appearance of major adaptations for flight, but now they also lack a step-by-step disappearance of these adaptations in the case of the ‘secondarily flightless’ oviraptorosaurs!

Theropods and the failed argument of stratomorphic intermediates
Some evolutionists insist that evolution must be true if for no other reason than the fact that certain ‘intermediate-structured’ fossils can always be found in the right portion of the geologic column.  Unfortunately, some professing creationists have also fallen for this spurious line of reasoning.  The stratomorphic-intermediate argument would only be valid if: (1) The time-stratigraphic interval in question contains only one group of potentially qualifying structural intermediates and, reciprocally, (2) Putative structural intermediates occur only in the correct stratigraphic interval where they are needed according to evolutionary theory (to bridge two other groups into an evolutionary sequence).

Consider, for a moment, the mammal-like reptiles.  They are perhaps the supreme example of stratomorphic intermediates.  But consider what would have happened had they never existed or had never been discovered.  Evolutionists, following the lead of ‘Darwin’s bulldog,’ Thomas Huxley, would probably cite ancient amphibians as the ancestral group to mammals.  Some extinct amphibian group would then be designated the stratomorphic intermediates that bridge non-mammals and mammals.23  This violates condition (1).  In the present study, the theropods expose the fallacy of stratomorphic intermediates by directly contradicting condition (2).  They provide an outstanding example of organisms that qualify to some degree as morphological intermediates in a would-be evolutionary progression, only to occur in the wrong part of the geologic column to serve as transitional forms.

There are a number of evidences indicating that the pre-Avialae theropods (Table 1) occur much too late in the standard geologic column (Jurassic) to serve as ancestors of birds.  For instance, Protoavis, despite occurring supposedly tens of millions of years earlier than Archaeopteryx, resembles modern birds to a greater extent than the latter.1  A recent discovery of birdlike footprints also argues strongly that birds appeared in the standard geologic column long before the creatures shown in Tables 1–4:

‘The known history of birds starts in the Late Jurassic epoch (around 150 million years ago) with the record of Archaeopteryx … Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characteristics from a Late Triassic redbed sequence of Argentina, at least 55 Myr before the first known skeletal record of birds.’24

Earlier claims of Late Triassic footprints had been challenged, and the footprints ascribed to non-avian dinosaurs.  However, the cited authors assert that these newly discovered footprints are incomparably more aviform in structure than the earlier-claimed ones.

In any case, it is interesting to note that some evolutionists recognize the fact that the theropods (including those listed in Table 1) do not possibly qualify as even indirect ancestors of birds.  Consider, for instance, the evolutionist Peter Dodson:

‘I hasten to add that none of the known small theropods, including Deinonychus, Dromaeosaurus, Velociraptor, Unenlagia, nor Sinosauropteryx, Protarcheaeopteryx, nor Caudipteryx is itself relevant to the origin of birds; these are all Cretaceous fossils … and as such can at best represent only structural stages through which an avian ancestor may be hypothesized to have passed.’25

‘I confess that I am a bit of a crank myself.  When ideas become too popular, and the siren call of new and iconoclastic ideas become too loud, I dig in my heels and begin looking at the other side.  I am on record as opposing cladistics and catastrophic extinction of dinosaurs; I am tepid on endothermic dinosaurs; I am skeptical about the theropod ancestry of birds.’26

The evolutionist Kevin Padian27 attacked Peter Dodson for making these statements, accusing him of—horror of horrors—following the lead of supposedly-creationist Jonathan Wells28 in doubting the theropod ancestry of birds.  Padian cited ghost lineages to account for the time-stratigraphic disparity in the theropod-bird transition.  He also asserted that those who doubt the theropod-bird relation must provide something better to test against it,29 or else what they are engaging in is neither legitimate skepticism nor science.30  In response, Dodson repudiated all forms of creationism, and pointed out the ad hoc nature of ghost lineages:

‘Personally, I continue to find it problematic that the most birdlike maniraptoran theropods are found 25 to 75 million years after the origin of birds … .  Ghost lineages are frankly a contrived solution, a deus ex machina required by the cladistic method.  Of course, it is admitted that late Cretaceous maniraptorans are not the actual ancestors of birds, only “sister taxa”.  Are we being asked to believe that a group of highly derived, rapidly evolving maniraptorans in the Jurassic gave rise to birds, as manifested by Archaeopteryx, and then this highly progressive lineage then went into a state of evolutionary stasis and persisted unchanged in essential characters for millions of years?  Or are actual ancestors far more basal in morphology and harder to classify?  If the latter, then why insist that the problem is now solved? [Italics in original.]’31

Volant avian evolution itself is for the birds
We now turn our attention to the presumed lineage that culminated in modern birds as the crown group.  If we accept Archaeopteryx as the first bird, then how did more modern birds supposedly evolve from it?  When placed in the context of the full history of bird evolution (Table 2, All Traits), it becomes obvious that Archaeopteryx is both preceded and succeeded by major discontinuities in the Avian Index.  As for progressive traits alone, none of them can be traced all the way from the presumably ancestral dromaeosaurids all the way to modern birds.32  However, the remaining progressive traits in Table 2 indicate a second major discontinuity in early bird evolution—that between Confusciusornis and its primitive sister, Sapeornis.  On the other side of Confusciusornis is a large gap (14.3 vs 31.3) between it and even the least derived members of its advanced sister-group complex.

A ‘magnifying lens’ view of the inferred early evolution of birds (Table 3) only magnifies the discontinuities (pardon the pun).  The relatively small step from dromaeosaurids to Archaeopteryx, smoothed over in the All Traits column, expands in the Progressive Traits column.  The Avian Index doubles from dromaeosaurids to Archaeopteryx, only to have to double once again from Archaeopteryx to Rahonavis.  In the All Traits column, there is a virtual chasm (a quadrupling of the Avian Index) from Archaeopteryx to Rahonavis.  There is another big leap (an almost doubling of the Avian Index), from Sapeornis to Confuciusornis, in both the All Traits and Progressive Traits columns of Table 3.  As if all this were not enough, 21 of the 131 useable traits used for Table 3 reverse themselves at least once in the evolutionary sequence.

Archaeopteryx to modern birds
Of course, the data pertaining to Archaeopteryx (Table 1–3) does not tell the full story.  It is interesting to note that many 19th century evolutionists, evidently following common sense, recognized the fact that Archaeopteryx does not qualify as a bona fide gap-filler for most of the morphological attributes that differentiate reptiles from birds:

‘In retrospect, it seems strange to modern sensibilities that evolutionary theorists were long held in sway by a vestige of ancient notions of harmony.  Historically, many fossils were argued not to be part of an ancestral line if they showed a mixture of early and late-emerging characters, since it was expected that intermediate forms would exhibit a perfect intermediacy between older and newer forms.  Thus a fossil such as Archaeopteryx, showing a mix of reptilian and avian characteristics, could not be placed as a transitional phase between these two classes, since all its characters are not transitional: evolution was conceived as occurring by a gradual and general transformation of the whole animal.’33

As elaborated by modern creationist scientists, there are no known creatures, leading up to Archaeopteryx, that have half-wing/half-leg structures.34  And, in spite of the apparent or actual existence of ‘feathered theropods,’ the supposed evolutionary origin of feathers remains problematic.35  Nowadays evolution is said to occur in a mosaic fashion, and this is supposedly justified by evolutionary changes in developmental pathways, relative to embryonic development.33  But, as noted earlier, embryonic development can soundly contradict accepted evolutionary schemes, notably the theropod-to-bird dogma.3  A second inescapable fact also remains: evolutionists have lowered their standards for what qualifies as evidence.  Failing to find fossil animals showing comprehensive intermediacy between reptiles and birds, they are now forced to patch together a ‘series’ of fossil animals that merely show a variegated assortment of reptilian and avian traits.

The most recent stages of bird evolution are also beset with trait reversals and discontinuities.  Apropos to the former, 29 of the 131 useable traits contained in Table 4 reverse themselves at least once.  As for the latter, consider how the Avian Indices would be distributed in Table 4 if they were smoothly gradational.  The All Traits would proceed at or near the following values: from 50.5 to 62.8 to 75.1 and culminating in 87.4 (the modern bird having the smallest value for the Avian Index in All Traits).  The corresponding values for the Progressive Traits would also begin with 50.5, proceeding to 66.7 and 83.4 before culminating in 100 (the modern bird having the smallest value for the Avian Index in Progressive Traits).  The reality behind the Avian Indices relevant to recent bird evolution (Table 4) is actually quite different.  There is a sharp gap between Patagopteryx and its advanced sister group, the Apsaravis-modern-bird cluster.  This discontinuity shows up in both columns of the overview of volant bird evolution (Table 2) as well as both columns of the close-up view of recent bird evolution (Table 4).

Finally, the Avian Indices of the most recent sister groups of modern birds must be put in perspective.  Note that there is substantial variability in the Avian Index of the five chosen recent birds.36  In the All Traits column of Table 4, the Avian Indices of Ichthyornis and Apsaravis are just over 8 units below Anas, but the corresponding distance from Anas to Crax is also 8 units.  Consequently, the presumed evolutionary change, from Ichthyornis through Apsaravis to modern birds, is unimpressively small.

Conclusions
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that both the theropod-to-bird lineage and the one from Archaeopteryx to modern bird are both artificial.  Both ‘progressions’ resemble a motley group of unrelated organisms cobbled together into a sequence.  After all, reversing traits are either common or predominant, and very much underrated owing to the large amount of missing data, and the nonreversing traits themselves usually show a series of abrupt jumps to ‘birdness.’

As if this was not enough, the most birdlike part of the theropod progression belongs not to the supposed ancestors of the first known bird, Archaeopteryx, but to the oviraptorosaurs, a descendant branch of ‘secondarily flightless theropods.’  And, of course, the ‘secondarily flightless’ status of these oviraptorosaurs begs the question about the need for volant ancestors.  The need for evolutionists to invoke this complex scenario of events serves as a reductio ad absurdum of evolutionary theory.  Instead of invoking a back-and-forth evolutionary process of land animals to birds and (in the case of oviraptorosaurs) back to land animals, how much more sensible it is to discard evolution altogether and to accept special creation instead!  Owing to the fact that the Creator was under no obligation to use a nested hierarchy of created living things, at least in every case, it is not difficult to understand why evolutionists have such problems in their attempts to force ‘nonavian’ and ‘avian’ traits into any sort of evolutionary lineage.  The final irony of all this is the fact that, contrary to the predictions of those who favor the argument about stratomorphic intermediates, known theropods occur in the wrong place in the stratigraphic column to serve as ancestors to birds.

The evolution of relatively modern birds is also full of discontinuities and reversals of traits.  Overall, modern birds show a less than impressive gradational connection to presumably earlier birds, and least of all to Archaeopteryx.  The variability among modern birds is significant,37 and increasing this range of variability by severalfold would be sufficient to encompass the entire range of Avian Indices found among the birds listed in Table 2.  Considering the fact that the extant (post-Flood) biosphere is very impoverished compared with the pre-Flood biosphere, this is not difficult to comprehend.

Before Demon writes this off as hogwash, let's look at Woodmorappe's history.  Far from being a fundamentalist, John Woodmorappe had not been raised to believe in Scriptural inerrancy in any way. Nothing drove him to unconventional science. He attended a college-preparatory Jesuit school, which was liberal theologically as well as politically. There he was taught that Genesis was myth and that organic evolution was a proven fact of science. Not knowing any better, he accepted it.

In his sophomore year, he took an advanced biology course. After organic evolution, John studied ecology, and was taught all the scare-stories of radical environmentalists as proven fact. Having learned that DDT and other organic chlorocarbons accumulate in the biosphere because they do not break down, John Woodmorappe wrote his teacher a paper. He suggested that scientists breed bacteria, after subjecting them to radiogenic mutations generation after generation, in progressively greater concentrations of DDT. Finally, we would have a strain of bacteria that not only breaks down DDT but also is dependent on it. When released into the biosphere, these bacteria would consume all the accumulated DDT. The teacher replied that this would probably not work, unless perhaps millions of years were available. This planted the first seed of doubt towards organic evolution in John's mind, because it showed that the notion of natural selection culminating in unlimited variation is something less than factual.

He decided to major in both geology and biology because of the pivotal role of these two disciplines in the study of origins.  He ended up with a BA in Biology, a BA in Geology, and an MA in Geology.

References and notes
1 Camp, A.L., On the alleged dinosaurian ancestry of birds, , 1998–2000. Return to text.
2 Oard, M.J., Bird-dinosaur link challenged, TJ 12(1):5–7, 1998. Return to text.
3 Sarfati, J., Ostriches break dino-to-bird theory, Creation 25(1):34–35, 2002. Return to text.
4 Olson, S.L., Open Letter to: Dr Peter Raven, Secretary, Committee for Research and Exploration, National Geographic Society, 1 November 1999. Return to text.
5 Maryanska, T., Osmolska, H. and Wolsan, M., Avialan status for Oviraptorosauria, Acta Paleontologica Polonica 47(1):97–116, 2002. Return to text.
6 Zhou, A. and Zhang, F., A long-tailed seed-eating bird from the Early Cretaceous of China, Nature 418:405–409, 2002.  The 201 traits, and the matrix relating them to other vertebrates, is presented as Supplemental Information at the Nature website, . Return to text.
7 Woodmorappe, J., The nontransitions in ‘human evolution’—on evolutionists terms, TJ 13(2):10–12, 1999. Return to text.
8 Woodmorappe, J., Mammal-like reptiles: major trait reversals and discontinuities, TJ 15(1):44–52, 2001. Return to text.
9 Lamb, A., Livoniana—have they (finally?) found a missing link? TJ 16(1):4–6, 2002. Return to text.
10 Woodmorappe, J., Walking whales, nested hierarchies and chimeras: do they exist? TJ 16(1):111–119, 2002. Return to text.
11 For example, suppose that a taxon has 140 of the 195 traits scored (the 55 are missing or unknown for the specimen(s) studied).  The 140 traits accumulate a total of 70 points for an All-Trait Avian Index of 50 (70/140 x 100). Return to text.
12 When all of the members of the cladogram experience an evolutionary change in a unidirectional direction for a particular trait, this is considered a progressive trait.  Examples of progressive traits are (0001122344) and (000111).  By contrast, whenever a trait is inferred to change from a more derived state back to a less derived one at least once in the accepted evolutionary sequence, this is considered a nonprogressive trait.  Examples of nonprogressive traits are (0010112223) and (0111232334). Return to text.
13 For example, a trait found in Confuciusornis is considered to reverse only if all the members of the Gobipteryx-Cathayornis subclade (out of the entire Gobipteryx-modern-bird sister group of Confuciusornis) score lower on that particular trait than Confuciusornis itself.  The criteria used for recognizing reversing groups within the subclades are even stricter (i.e. made favorable to the evolutionist).  For example, a trait encountered in Ichthyornis, the primitive sister group of all modern birds, is recognized as reversing only if all the five reference modern birds in Table 2 score lower on that particular trait than Ichthyornis itself. Return to text.
14 Use of modern birds as the reference point only implies movement towards an eventual outcome and does not, of course, imply that the evolutionary process was goal-oriented in any way. Return to text.
15 Lee, M.S.Y., Circularity, evolution, systematics … and circularity. J. Evolutionary Biology 12:724–734, 1999. Return to text.
16 Maryanska et al., Ref. 5, p. 102. Return to text.
17 The 37 traits are those that had shown some continuity over each major stage of bird evolution.  Specifically, each of the 201 prospective traits had to simultaneously include data in each of the following stages of bird evolution: At least: 7 of 10 premodern birds, 4 of 6 of the most primitive entries listed, and 2 out of 3 members of the following: Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and Ichthyornis.  The 37 qualifying traits are: 56-58, 67, 83, 85–87, 90, 92, 94, 99, 101, 105–107, 110, 111, 113, 114, 119, 131, 139, 141, 148, 150, 165, 166, 177, 178, 180, 182, 186, 188, 190, 195, and 199.  Of these, the following 21 were nonreversing: 56, 67, 85, 90, 94, 99, 101, 106, 107, 111, 119, 131, 148, 150, 165, 166, 178, 180, 186, 190, and 195. Return to text.
18 The normalization process always gives the evolutionist the benefit of the doubt in the many instances of absent data.  This strongly favors the evolutionist by holding down the apparent frequency of reversing traits.  This owes to the fact that new data can never change a reversing trait to a nonreversing one, but can easily do the reverse.  Consider, for instance, a hypothetical reversing trait that contains the following sequence of scores (0001?11211).  No possible value for the absent point (?) could ever change the sequence to a nonreversing trait.  Now consider the following trait and its hypothetical sequence of scores:  (0001?11122).  The missing data point (?) is treated as neutral, allowing the sequence to be reckoned as nonreversing, and of course favoring the evolutionist.  But note that any value other than 1, for the missing data point, will instantly change the nonreversing sequence to a reversing one.

Were a heavier burden of proof placed on the evolutionist, commensurate with his usual evolution-is-fact mantra and slogan, no normalization would be performed.  Instead, missing data would be treated as a liability for evolution. That is, missing evidence would then count as an absence of evidence for evolution, as opposed to merely counting the existing evidence for versus against an evolutionary progression, instead of unknown evidence that could go either way.  If this was done, the ‘progressive’ appearance of traits (avian, in this case), as reflected by the Avian Index, would be quite puny.   Return to text.

19 For description, see Woodmorappe, Ref. 8, p. 45. Return to text.
20 Maryanska et al., Ref. 5, p. 98. Return to text.
21 Maryanska et al., Ref. 5, p. 105. Return to text.
22 Maryanska et al., Ref. 5, p. 106. Return to text.
23 Woodmorappe, Ref. 8, p. 51. Return to text.
24 Melchor, R.N., de Valais, S. and Genise, J.F., Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic, Nature 417:936–938, 2002. Return to text.
25 Dodson, P., Origin of birds: the final solution? American Zoologist 40:505–506, 2000. Return to text.
26 Dodson, P., Mesozoic feathers and fluff, American Paleontologist 9(1):7, 2001. Return to text.
27 Padian, K., Comment, American Paleontologist 9(4):12–13, 2001. Return to text.
28 Wells, J., Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Regnery Publishing, Washington D.C., 2000.  Actually, Jonathan Wells is an Intelligent Design scholar, and probably does not consider himself a creationist. Return to text.
29 Obviously, Padian’s understanding of testing phylogenies is entirely self-referential to evolution itself. Return to text.
30 How many times have creationist scientists heard that one before! Return to text.
31 Dodson, P., Response by Peter Dodson, American Paleontologist 9(4):13–14, 2001.  Far from endorsing the special creation of birds, Dodson is merely giving an evolutionary alternative by suggesting that the actual ancestor to birds may be found in earlier strata. Return to text.
32 This is caused by the large amount of missing data, as elaborated earlier.   Return to text.
33 Lock, A. and Peters. C.R. (Eds), Editorial introduction to Part III; in: Handbook of Human Symbolic Evolution, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 372, 1996. Return to text.
34 Frair, W., Review of Taking Wing, CRSQ 36(1):9–10, 1999. Return to text.
35 Bergman, J., The evolution of feathers; a major problem for Darwinism, TJ 17(1):34–42, 2003.  See also Rossmann, T., Feathered or furry dinosaurs? TJ 16(3):190, 2002. Return to text.
36 The disparity between the variance of successive sister groups (of clades that include modern birds), and that which exists between modern birds themselves, is much greater in the Progressive Trait column of Table 4 than in the All Traits column.  However, the Progressive Trait column of Table 4 is, in this exceptional situation, not as reliable as the All Traits column for the following reason.  Members comprising the crown group (modern birds) have almost no missing traits, whereas the three successive sister groups (of clades that include modern birds), contain a large fraction of missing data.  This introduces the following bias: The Avian Indices in the successive sister groups (namely Patagopteryx, Ichthyornis, and Apsaravis) are very disproportionately depressed relative to the Avian Indices of modern birds. Return to text.
37 Of course, there is no guarantee that the five modern birds chosen by the initial investigators, and listed in Table 2 and Table 4, necessarily encompass the entire range of relevant morphological variability that is found in extant modern birds


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:41 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, so you are saying that Archaeopteryx was "transitional" between dinosaurs and modern birds, yet is not an ancestor of modern birds.  That makes no sense.  You're saying A became B became C, but B did not produce C.  How in the world does that happen?

you don't understand evolution or biology.
yes, Archaeopteryx is transitional between dinosaurs and modern birds.  No it is probably not ancestral.  How does that happen, it clearly has features of both birds and dinosaurs.  Archaeopteryx represents a line that that ended in extinction, it is not directly ancestral to modern birds.  But this does nothing to refute it's transitional nature.  From here:
TransitionalFossil

"The terms 'transitional' and 'intermediate' are for the most part used as synonyms to each other. However, a distinction between the two can be made:

Transitional can be used for those forms that do not have a significant amount of unique derived traits that the derived relative does not possess as well. In other words: a transitional is morphologically close (if not identical) to the actual common ancestor of itself and the derived relative.
Intermediate can be used for those forms that do have a large number of uniquely derived traits not connected to its derived relative.
According to this definition, e.g. Archaeopteryx, that does not show any derived traits that more derived birds do not possess as well, is transitional. In contrast, e.g. the Duck-billed Platypus is intermediate because it retains certain reptilian traits no longer found in modern mammals and at the same time possesses a lot of derived traits of its own, as a highly specialized aquatic animal."

So there you go, Archaeopteryx is transtional between dinosaurs and birds but not ancestral.  Do your self a favor and learn what the terms you're trying to use mean!



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:28 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Archaeopteryx represents a line that that ended in extinction, it is not directly ancestral to modern birds.

Thank you.  I've been waiting for someone to admit that.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:57 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thank you.  I've been waiting for someone to admit that.

All you had to do is look at any book of modern paleontology!  No one claims Archaeopteryx was ancestral to modern birds.
But that doesn't change the fact that Archaeopteryx is transistional and is excellent evidence supporting evolution.  It's very existance refutes special creation.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:46 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

John Woodmorappe

Woodmorappe is worthless, why do you even bother to quote him?  Is he a paleontologist?
What are his qualifications?  From here:
WoodmorappeFraud

"In the halls of that repository of all things witless, Answers in Genesis, John Woodmorappe has been busy offering his fairly inept pen, to what must qualify as among the most idiotic and vacuous creationist attacks on avian phylogenetics (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n1_bird.asp), ever offered. This latest AIG tirade about bird evolution is in response to intriguing new research on the phylogeny of Oviraptorosauria (Maryanska et al. 2002) which concluded that oviraptorosaurs are in fact secondarily flightless birds more derived than the urvogel. In stereotypical creationist form, Woodmorappe attempts to deconstruct in cavalier style a science of which he clearly knows nothing. Oblivious to reality, Woodmorappe indulges in wholesale ineptitude, drubbing the reader with some of the most egregious inaccuracies and errors to be found in any published account of avian evolution."

What the heck, since cut and paste is all you do, let me reciprocate, from the same site as above:

"There are several salient points of this new essay, however, which might be summarized as such. First and foremost there is a vague and internally contradictory discussion about cladistic analysis, which at one moment derides it as the subjective tool of horrid evolutionists, and in the next the rational, quantitative method for charting lineages without evolutionary suppositions, (which smacks of pseudo-cladistics, or baraminology). Apparently to suitably impress his gullible readers, Woodmorappe pastes obligatory graphics modeling character distribution (e.g., Table 1), and a simplified cladogram of Aves (e.g., Table 2). What Woodmorappe conveniently omits from his tantrum in press is the actual character set and resultant matrices from which Maryanska et al. (2002) derived their phylogenetic hypotheses. We would think that if Woodmorappe were actually interested in discussing avian phylogeny and not merely presenting hollow rhetoric he would at least mention in passing the character data from Maryanska et al. (2002). It is further worth noting that his Table 1 bears no appreciable resemblance to any of the figures published in the Maryanska et al. paper.

The vacillation continues as Woodmorappe turns to addressing the cladistic support for a theropod origin of birds. As cladistics is now inconvenient for him, he has to attack its reliability and thus invokes sanctimonious preaching about its being rigged to support evolution. But the fantasia on a theme really begins when Woodmorappe stumbles onto his main points: a) character reversal is not explicable within an evolutionary context and b) the acquisition of avian features during theropod evolution was saltational, and thus cannot be accepted.

Needless to say neither of these assertions has even the slightest basis in reality. Woodmorappe presents no data to suggest why character reversal is of profound difficulty for evolutionary biology to accommodate, and merely offers special pleading that reversal is less “parsimonious” than special creation. Needless to say this reflects a catastrophic (albeit amusing) misunderstanding of what parsimony actually is. Parsimony quite simply is the epistemology that the explanation, which requires the least ad hoc hypotheses and auxiliary assumptions, is most favorable as it maximizes the ability of empirical data to discern amongst competing explanations. How the invocation of a deity renders a postulate more parsimonious is not readily apparent.

His second assertion, that massive saltations exist in the acquisition of avian characters, is simply farcical and reflective of complete ignorance of theropod phylogeny. The entire clade Neotetanurae (Coelurosauria + Allosauroidea) exhibits a progressive ornithization trend that was first noted over a century ago and has been the most striking aspect of theropod evolution since commented on. There is in effect a smooth gradation between the most basal potential theropod bird ancestors and the most paravian of theropods, such that forms like the marvelous Sinornithosaurus milleni are nearly identical to the urvogel. Most damning to creationism is the fact that even the derivation of feathers--long hailed as the death knell of avian evolution--is demonstrably gradual exhibiting a series of hierarchically derived stages, which conforms precisely to what we should expect if feathers evolved in the first place. Nowhere in his monumentally disingenuous essay does Woodmorappe quantify exactly what evolutionary changes in the lineage leading to birds were saltational, he merely asserts baldly that they were. Fearing not where anyone with a brain would rather not set foot, Woodmorappe then goes on to assert that the same is true in reverse: the evolution of flightless forms from flighted ancestors is saltational and thus highly improbable! If his first lecture on saltationism was not enough to stretch the bounds of credulity, then this next dose is guaranteed to do so. Apparently unperturbed by the fact that the process by which flight is lost in birds and its attendant morphological changes are among the best understood phenomena in ornithology, Woodmorappe offers no clarification of what changes he considers saltational in this scenario.

Finished dismantling evolution with these deep philosophical objections, Woodmorappe focuses on specific objections to the theropod hypothesis for avian ancestry, pilfered of course from actual scientists. His first and most hysterical is in fact outrageously Darwinian, and as a creationist he should be ashamed to use it. He insists (correctly) that some theropods are more avian than Archaeopteryx, and is thus only one small step away from making an evolutionary argument. We might hold out with the hope that perhaps someday Woodmorappe would put two and two together and get four. Needless to say, the fact that some theropods are more avian than the most primitive birds is powerful confirmation of their phylogenetic affinities.

He goes to make the same tired and wearisome allegation that has plagued this poor fossil since its discovery, insisting that Caudipteryx is in fact a secondarily flightless bird and thus of no relevance to the theropod descent of birds, or even their evolution. Woodmorappe does his AIG compatriot Ashby Camp one better by claiming without equivocation that the avian status of Caudipteryx has been proven. Of course one has come to expect such fiction from AIG. In the real world just the opposite is true. Repeated cladistic analysis of morphological characters (which Woodmorappe likes sometimes, and dislikes other times depending on what sort of argument he is making) have time and again corroborated the oviraptorosaur affinities of Caudipteryx and the argument that in fact represents a flightless bird is increasingly untenable.

Such obligatory comments out of the way, Woodmorappe proceeds to unveil la piece de resistance, the coup de grace with which to forever shatter the theropod origin of birds…temporal paradox. Sounding more like a bad episode of the Twilight Zone than a scientific rebuttal, he drags out the same sorry, endlessly refuted stratophenetic objections that have so long been standard fare amongst those who oppose the theropod origin of birds. Following this devastating blow, he reveals the first trump card, “Protoavis texensis” as a shattering disproof of theropod origins on temporal grounds. Of course Woodmorappe fails to mention that a) “Protoavis” is a fauna, not a species, b) the chimerical material is not particularly avian in any regard, and c) most creationists would chide him on using it at all. Unhindered by such trifling things, Woodmorappe plows ahead to eviscerate the theropod/bird nexus with extensive quotes from Dr. Peter Dodson, an expert not on theropods but on ceratopsians. Dodson implies temporal disparity where none exists, as Coelurosauria, the clade, which is the most logical avian ancestral taxon given character data, predates Archaeopteryx. Moreover, there is compelling evidence for at the very least, the Upper Jurassic derivation of Maniraptora, a yet closer avian outgroup. Woodmorappe obligingly fails to make note of this (at least Dodson has the excuse of his not being a theropod expert).

In an anti-evolutionary tour de force, Woodmorappe closes with a deconstruction of avian evolution post-Archaeopteryx, starting with the bizarre statement that there is a massive saltation between the Archaeopteryx node and the level of organization reflected in the osteology of Confuciusornis. Considering how astonishingly primitive Confuciusornis is, this claim is difficult to take seriously. Woodmorappe’s typical reluctance to provide anything like data in defense of assertions only further weakens his credibility. Similar assertions are made when comparing Archaeopteryx and the Malagasy Rahonavis and apparently Confuciusornis and Enantiornithes and just as before, Woodmorappe is indulging in marvelous fantasy writing. His supposed saltations are quite simply non-existent as even a cursory examination of the morphology of the species he discusses, would reveal. Of course Woodmorappe does not do this for fear of revealing the rag of tissue that his essay is, instead couching his objections in pseudocladistic rot with which to dazzle the eyes of loyal creationists.

Following this comes the masterful conclusion of Woodmorappe’s paper, a paragraph so bereft of factuality and so crowded with distortions, fallacies and outright lies, that it would put Kent Hovind to shame. In a whirlwind of rhetoric Woodmorappe categorically announces that: there is no “half-wing/half-leg” structure in the lineage leading to Archaeopteryx (quite correct since wings are forelimbs, not hind-limbs and moreover because no such structure would be expected in the first place), we cannot explain the origin of feathers, embryology disproves the theropod origin of birds, and so on. After we stop laughing, we can reiterate that not a single one of these statements belongs outside the annals of fiction—which is precisely why we find them at AIG.

All in all, I have rarely seen so delusional a creationist essay as Woodmorappe’s and that is a dubious distinction indeed."

So much for Woodmorappe's nonsense!

The alleged evolutionary transformation of reptiles to birds is fraught with numerous subjective interpretations and conflicting opinions of evolutionary descent.1–3  The fashionable theory is that birds evolved from theropods (carnivorous dinosaurs), but the evolutionist Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, called it ‘one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.’4

You've got it wrong, again!  Like I said, you can't do accurate research!  yes, Olson doubts dinosaur to bird evolution, even though these comments were made before the recent discoveries about dinosaurs more avian resperitory systems, but he certainlydoesn't doubt birds evolved from reptiles!  He thinks birds evolved from the non dinosaurian reptile longisquama.  So why do you try to twist what an evolutionist is saying (Olson) to support creationism!  Olson most certainly does accept evolution of birds, that he argues against the current, most widely accepted model of bird evolution does nothing to support your point, just as Olson himself does nothing to support your point.

A recently published, comprehensive cladistic study of bird evolution by Maryanska et al.5 only adds fuel to the fire.  Based on analysis of the many relevant specimens housed in Poland, Mongolia, and Russia, and relying on 195 skeletal characters of theropods and early birds, it facilitates a thorough examination of the relationship between theropods and early birds.

yeah, and you never bother to tell us what it tells us about the relationship between birds and therapod dinosaurs!  Why did you even post this?!?!
From here:
DinoBird
"Maryanska et al. (2002) augment these synapomorphies with a list of the impressively avian characters of oviraptorosaurs, some of which are accurately observed, while others are at best ambiguous (e.g., the rodlike jugal bar, see Paul 2002) or demonstrably homoplastic (e.g., doubled otic process of the quadrate). The vast majority of these traits (e.g., robust furcula) are also observed in non-avian theropods and thus are clearly plesiomorphic at any level of organization beyond Aves itself (the postulated phylogenetic position of Oviraptorosauria in this study).

Thus, such similarities with birds must be regarded as reflective of the general trend of "ornithization" present in all Neotetanurae (Barsbold 1983). There are further complications with viewing the Oviraptorosauria as secondarily flightless, in that though they are in fact quite birdlike, they do not generally conform to the observed morphological patterns in flightless birds. For example, the furcula in such forms as Ingenia yanshini is hypertrophied. Yet in all flightless birds the furcula degenerates into vestigial clavicular splints. Why it would be retained in a flightless cursor is not readily apparent. Similar problems include the orientation of the glenoid, which in all oviraptorosaurs is directed ventrally as in most theropods, the orientation relative to the rib cage of the scapular blade, the distal expansion thereof, the structure of the pelvic girdle (particularly that of the ischia and the retention of an obturator process) and morphology of the coracoid. These character data are difficult to reconcile with a secondarily flightless status for Oviraptorosauria as they are entirey incongruent with the stereotypical morphology of flightless birds."

And the conclusion from the same site:
" Though carefully researched with an exhaustive review of skeletal characters, the central conclusion of this recent paper on oviraptorosaur phylogeny--that these dinosaurs are in fact secondarily flightless birds--remains unsubstantiated and in need of further character evidence before it can be regarded as a robust hypothesis. "

In other words, despite the bird like qualities,
Oviraptorosauria are still bird like dinosaurs.

Another recently published study, by Zhou and Zhang,6 based on 201 skeletal characters, complements the first.  It allows for the tracing of avian evolution itself, spanning the supposed evolutionary continuum that exists between the dromaeosaurids as outgroup, on the one hand, and modern birds, on the other, as the crown group.  (Note that the outgroup is immediately outside the inferred evolutionary progression, and is used as a reference point for the ‘primitive’ condition, whereas the crown group consists of the most derived members of the inferred evolutionary progression).

What the hell?!?  Are you agreeing with me now?  Or did you just cut and paste not really knowing what you were cutting and pasting?
"It allows for the tracing of avian evolution itself, spanning the supposed evolutionary continuum that exists between the dromaeosaurids as outgroup, on the one hand, and modern birds, on the other, as the crown group. "  Dromaeosaurids are dinosaurs, Zhou and Zhang support dino to bird evolution, as they say in your post above!  Here's another example of what they say about dino to bird evolution, from here:
ZhouandZhang
"Although the dinosaurian hypothesis of bird origins is widely accepted, debate remains about how the ancestor of birds first learned to fly. Here we provide new evidence suggesting that basal dromaeosaurid dinosaurs were four-winged animals and probably could glide, representing an intermediate stage towards the active, flapping-flight stage. The new discovery conforms to the predictions of early hypotheses that proavians passed through a tetrapteryx stage."

Geez!  You don't even know what you're posting!

Your mistakes are really getting bad!  Let me see if you can respond to any of these points or if you'll ignore them and I'll finish demolishing the rest of your post later tonight.



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:54 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

here's a nice bit of information about archeaopterex...http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_07.html
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 5:16 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

here's a nice bit of information about

Did you read the thread?!?  Those points were already refuted, the site you posted is nonsense.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:19 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oviraptorosauria are still bird like dinosaurs

So Oviraptorosauria are not transitional between dinosaurs and birds, but are bird-like dinosaurs?  Is that your stand?  For all the arguing, I've yet to see you're proof for particle-to-people evolution.  And if you are just a random bunch of atoms that got together (spare me the billion years of evolution thesis) with no soul, why are you wasting your precious few years on this planet trying to convince others?  Eat, drink and be merry, for there is no higher purpose for glorified chimpanzees.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 6:51 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


LATEST EVIDENCE: OSTRICH STUDY REFUTES THE DINO-BIRD STORY

Dr. Feduccia: His new study is enough to bury the 'dino-bird" myth

The latest blow to the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory came from a study made on the embryology of ostriches.

Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied a series of live ostrich eggs and, once again, concluded that there cannot be an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. EurekAlert, a scientific portal held by the American Association for the The Advancement of Science (AAAS), reports the following:

Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill... opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs...

Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said... "Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three... Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible." 1

In the same report, Dr. Freduccia also made important comments on the invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory:

"There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia] said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old."

If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences, Feduccia said. Theropod dinosaurs, for example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method of tooth implantation and replacement."2

This evidence once again reveals that the "dino-bird" hype is just another "icon" of Darwinism: A myth that is supported only for the sake of a dogmatic faith in the theory.

1 - David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird 'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs," EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php
2 - David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird 'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs," EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php

 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 10:13 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from camaroracer214 at 10:13 PM on September 12, 2005 :

LATEST EVIDENCE: OSTRICH STUDY REFUTES THE DINO-BIRD STORY

Fedducia's "latest study" (in 2002!) virtually reduced him to crank level.

Are current critiques of the theropod origin of birds science? origin of birds science? Rebuttal to Feduccia (2002)

Since it was first proposed cladistically by Gauthier (1986), the theropod origin of birds has been supported by numerous discoveries, including many new theropods closely related to birds (Novas and Puerta 1997; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003; Czerkas et al. 2002; Norell et al. 2002), many new basal avian fossils that further blur the distinction between birds and other theropods (Forster et al. 1998; Zhou and Zhang 2002), many theropod furculae (Tykoski et al. 2002), over a dozen feathered theropods (Prum and Brush 2002), the digit frameshift hypothesis (Wagner and Gauthier 1999), and molecular developmental support for the frame-shift (Dahn and Fallon 2000) (see below), the reduction of the temporal paradox by two thirds (Xu et al. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003; Czerkas et al. 2002; Norell et al. 2002), bird-like nesting behavior in theropods (reviewed in Prum 2002), and most recently by four winged dromaeosaurs (Xu et al. 2003). Given that the theropod origin of birds is entirely consistent with and supported by all of the new evidence discovered in the last decade, and that many testable predictions generated by the hypothesis have been independently supported, it is an overwhelmingly successful scientific theory.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:25 AM on September 13, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So Oviraptorosauria are not transitional between dinosaurs and birds, but are bird-like dinosaurs?  Is that your stand?  

No, can't you understand what you posted?!?
Oviraptorosuria are bird like dinosaurs, transitional between dinosaurs and birds, NOT flightless birds.  
Oh, and have you learned what "transitional" means yet?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:57 PM on September 13, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Right, you said bird-like dinosaurs.  Not birds.  Not something between birds and dinosaurs.  Bird-like is an adjective.  The noun is dinosaurs.  You are stating that they are dinosaurs.  That's all I'm clarifying.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:16 PM on September 13, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Right, you said bird-like dinosaurs.  Not birds.  Not something between birds and dinosaurs.  Bird-like is an adjective.  The noun is dinosaurs.  You are stating that they are dinosaurs.  That's all I'm clarifying.

Yes they were dinosaurs.  Dinosaurs with bird-like features.  Not directly between dinosaurs and birds, but more avian than other dinosaurs.  Bird-like is an adjective.  In this case, it refers to the Oviraptorosauria physiology, which had remarkably bird-like features, which is best explained by evolution.
Just wanted to make sure you understood what I meant.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:32 PM on September 14, 2005 | IP
axelrod

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe EMyers is just trying to get an admission that there is no precise transitional evidence between dinos and birds.

Demon38, you are already aware of this I am sure... but in my experience the creationists will only accept a T-rex with some ostrich legs, or a pigeon with tiny forearms and teeth as "proof" of the transitional potential of evolution.

By getting this admission I believe he feels he has made a point of some kind. That the admitting the lack of any true evidence of a direct existing connected lineage from one species to the next is  just evidence that evolution is false. All animals are distinct and non-changing.

I apologize if I am pointing out the obvious. I really am enjoying every minute reading this and wanted to give kudos to the effort. You are doing a fantastic job Demon38 and I was raised by Mennonites... thus a painful awareness of all of the arguments against evolution.

I think I have learned more about dinosaurs and evolution in the half hour reading here than anywhere else discussing this topic.

(Edited by axelrod 9/16/2005 at 6:50 PM).
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 6:49 PM on September 16, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think I have learned more about dinosaurs and evolution in the half hour reading here than anywhere else discussing this topic.

Yeah, that's why I like coming here, I learn alot from the other posters.  Whether it's solid, factual information from people like Apoapsis or having to research my answers to people like EMyers or deductive-christian.
Hey, I like to debate, I like responding to a well reasoned arguement.  True, I do get cranky when I see the same old stuff that's been refuted decades ago, but I'm working on being more civil...(and yes, I have a long way to go...)
So thanks for the compliment axelrod
and join in, it's more fun to be right in the thick of things!

(Edited by Demon38 9/16/2005 at 11:22 PM).

(Edited by Demon38 9/16/2005 at 11:23 PM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:21 PM on September 16, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.