On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:50:29 -0400, Pastor Dave
_gmail.com> wrote in
4ax.com> :
>On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:12:49 -0400, Augray
>
spake thusly:
>>>>>In this instance, it's possibly because this is the third time I've
>>>>caught him lying about Feduccia.
>>>
>>>I haven't lied about him at all.
>>
>>Yeah, you have.
>>
>>
>>> He said what I quoted.
>>
>>Did I say otherwise?
>
>Then I have not lied about him.
Yes, you did. You said that Archaeopteryx "is nothing but a perching
bird", and then invoked Feduccia, saying "I will quote Feduccia a few
times, as he is an expert in the fields required", giving the
impression that Feduccia agreed with you. But he obviously *doesn't*
think that it's "nothing but a perching bird".
>>The problem is that you misrepresented his
>>position. You said Archaeopteryx "is nothing
>>but a perching bird", but that's clearly *not*
>>what Feduccia believes.
>
>You trying to give what you believe about it,
>is not proof that I lied about what he said.
>I quoted his words.
And implied that he held an opinion that he clearly does not hold.
>I also stated what it is.
No, you stated what you *wanted* it to be, and even though you cite
Feduccia as an expert, you disagree with him.
>If you want to believe it is what you believe
>it is anyway, contrary to what it is and what
>Feduccia said it is, that's up to you.
But the point is that it's *not* contrary to what Feduccia believes.
Both Feduccia and I accept that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form.
On that point we're in complete agreement.
>But what
>you're doing, is trying to claim that one
>statement eliminates the other.
No, I'm stating that you don't understand what Feduccia was saying, or
that you deliberately distort it. He's simply claiming that
Archaeopteryx isn't a dinosaur, as some have claimed, but a bird. What
you're doing is the equivalent of saying that Jesus was "only a man".
>"It's a perching bird, period!"
Another distortion.
The Berlin _Archaeopteryx_ may well be the most important natural
history specimen in existence, comparable perhaps in scientific
and even monetary value to the Rosetta stone.
- Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. New
Haven: Yale University Press, pg. 29.
He obviously thinks that it's much more than "...a perching bird,
period!"
>"I believe in evolution!"
Based on evidence:
Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the
deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is
related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an
argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable
fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing.
>"Okay guys, the second statement cancels out
> the first one, alright?"
More like "Pastor Dave takes Feduccia's words out of context".
>Only desperate evolutionist idiots thing it does!
But no one but you claims that there's any canceling out. What I'm
claiming is that you're lying about Feduccia's position.
>>So, were you lying, or
>>were you ignorant of his position? But since I've provided evidence to
>>you of Feduccia's position on two previous occasions, I can only
>>assume that you're lying. How is that assumption unreasonable?
Well?
>>>The problem with evolutionists, is their straw men and
>>>red herrings, all designed to avoid providing the supposed
>>>"mountains of evidence" for macroevolution, which is
>>>really nothing but examples of microevolution. You idiots
>>>spend your time trying to change the subject, instead of
>>>proving what you claim is true.
>>
>>I'm trying to keep the subject on Archaeopteryx.
>>Why doesn't *it* qualify as evidence?
>
>Thank you for proving my point! With evolutionists,
>it's never "here's the proof". It's always, "Why isn't
>it proof?".
In that case, Archaeopteryx is proof of evolution. Game over. But will
this satisfy you? Probably not. But can anyone ask *why* it doesn't?
No, because for some reason trying to understand Pastor Dave's
position is a no no. Probably because it boils down to Pastor Dave
simply not liking the implications. In the absence of any response
from you, one can only speculate. Personally, I'm leaning towards
willful ignorance.
>What you must do, is PROVE MACROEVOLUTION.
>Pointing at one creature and claiming it is evidence,
>does not make it so, nor does it PROVE MACROEVOLUTION.
>
>Some birds have teeth, some don't.
None now living have teeth. Teeth are a primitive feature for birds.
>Some birds have
>bony tails, some don't.
None now alive have long bony tails. That's another primitive feature
for birds.
>So what?
But that's not all by a long shot. I gave you several other features
that you ignore, but which I've re-inserted below. Why do you avoid
them? Or is that another verboten question? Or is asking *any*
question of you taboo?
>And isn't it interesting
>that evolutionists don't really show it the way it probably
>looked alive?
Beyond doubt, [Archaeopteryx] is the most widely known and
illustrated animal...
- Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. New
Haven: Yale University Press, pg. 29.
And remember, "...[Feduccia] is an expert in the fields required". So
how is it that you're making claims that contradict your chosen
expert? According to your champion, evolutionists *do* illustrate
Archaeopteryx quite a bit. Why is it that you didn't know that?
>Rather, they like to show the lines in the rock,
They're called "bones".
>because it makes it look more "dinosaur like",
>when in reality, it looks that way, because it is just bones
>you're looking at and it actually did have feathers!
So, bones don't actually mean anything, because they make the animal
look like a dinosaur? Did it occur to you that dinosaur bones may have
characteristics that allow them to be identified as having belonged to
dinosaurs? Or are you saying that scientists can't tell the difference
between bird bones and dinosaur bones? Or are these forbidden
questions?
>So you have an extinct perching bird! So what?!
>Had we not known the dodo bird, you'd call that
>"an evolutionary link" as well!
No, because dodos had features of living birds, like:
- a beak.
- bone fusion in the skull.
- a lack of teeth.
- saddle-shaped articular surfaces of the neck vertebrae
- a strut-shaped coracoid
- an ossified and keeled sternum.
- fused thoracic vertebrae.
- no gastralia.
- more than five sacral vertebrae.
- pubic bones retroverted, not fused to each other, but fused to the
illium and ishium.
- fibula doesn't reached the ankle.
- Fifth metatarsal absent.
- a tarsometatarsus.
- a pygostyle.
Hence, it's obvious that no one familiar with anatomy would consider
the dodo to be an evolutionary link. And it's obvious that you don't
know what evolutionists base their claims on. So why are you
critiquing something that you know nothing about?
>To you idiot evolutionists, pointing at anything that lives
>and claiming it is evidence, somehow proves evolution!
Do you seriously think that evolutionists simply point to animals and
claim that they're evidence for evolution? You really need to read up
on the subject you're trying to criticize.
>It takes a leap of faith
When one deliberately ignores the evidence, as you do.
>to believe that evolution can make
>the jump between cells and invertebrates, invertebrates
>and vertebrates, reptiles and birds, fish and amphibians,
>amphibians and reptiles and reptiles and mammals,
But since we have examples of all of these transitions, it's no
problem.
>especially when out of place fossils are often found.
But since it's relatively easy to recognize when a fossil is "out of
place", it's not a big deal.
>There are not merely missing links, but missing chains
>between links (you claim they are links).
>
>This shows that macroevolution is your imagination,
>not proven science, since the only thing that can
>prove what you believe, is a chain of fossils, from
>one kind to another and we both know it!
>
>If the fossils existed, then we would have had them
>laid out for us and the debate would be over
Here's a chain from reptiles to birds: Euparkeria, Scleromochlus,
Lagerpeton, Marasuchus, Eoraptor, Coelophysis, Sinosauropteryx,
Dilong, Caudipteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx,
Rahonavis, Shenzhouraptor, Jeholornis, Jixiangornis, Sapeornis,
Sinornis, Liaoningornis, Yixianornis, Yanornis, Apsaravis,
Ichthyornis.
Is the debate over? Probably not. Hence, it's obvious that it's not
the "missing chains" that you have problems with.
>and we wouldn't have evolutionists having an orgasm,
>every time they think a link has been found!
So, increasing knowledge isn't something to get excited about? If you
were Christopher Columbus, you've have sighted the New World, turned
abound and gone home. But then, you can't be bothered to check your
claims before posting them, so that's hardly surprising.
Below are things that Pastor Dave can address, and removed without
indicating they were ever there.
>>>The
>>>truth is, that it doesn't matter what he believes about
>>>evolution,
>>
>>Why not? Why isn't his expertise good enough now? What about these
>>quotes that don't mention evolution?:
>>
>> There are no skeletal features of _Archaeopteryx_, except the
>> furcula, that are not also found in Jurassic reptiles.
>> - Feduccia, A. 1980. The Age of Birds. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
>> Harvard University Press, pg. 24.
>>
>> [Archaeopteryx is] a bird that has anatomical features of a
>> reptile, feathers, and a long, lizard-like tail.
>> - Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. New
>> Haven: Yale university Press, pg. 29.
>>
>>Do you still believe that "he is an expert in the fields required"?
No answer?
>>>nor if he believes that birds evolved from
>>>dinosaurs, nor vice versa. The quote I provided deals
>>>with whether or not archaeopteryx is what you people
>>>claim it is and he does not agree with that conclusion
>>>and is an expert.
>>
>>So will you accept his expertise now?:
>>
>> ...the ancient anisodactyl foot was less efficient anatomically
>> than the foot of modern birds, and the [perching toe] of
>> _Archaeopteryx_ was slightly elevated above the plane of the
>> anterior toes and decidedly shorter.
>> - Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. New
>> Haven: Yale university Press, pg. 13.
>>
>>
>>>Now you go ahead and throw out all of the crapola
>>>that you want to,
>>
>>You're the one throwing out crapola here.
>>
>>
>>>but nothing will change the fact
>>>that you and the other evolutionists are dishonest
>>>and that the one thing we never see from you,
>>>is proof of macroevolution!
>>
>>Yet Archaeopteryx is an excellent example of evolution, and Feduccia
>>agrees. Why do you reject his expertise, expertise *you* claimed that
>>he had??
>>
>>
>>>You people do not debate honestly!
>>
>>Debate!?! All you've done is thrown out a few quotes! If you really
>>want to debate, let's talk anatomy:
>>
>>- Archaeopteryx lacked an alula (used to reduce wing turbulence during
>>low speed flight), which is found in living birds.
>>
>>- Its metacarpal bones were not fused into a carpometacarpus, as in
>>living birds.
>>
>>- The ulnare (a carpal bone in the wrist, AKA the cuneiform) of
>>Archaeopteryx was not V-shaped. In living birds this helps keep the
>>wing rigid during the downstroke, preventing it from buckling.
>>
>>- It lacked a triosseal canal in the shoulder for passage of the
>>tendon of the supracoracoideus muscle (which assists in the wing's
>>upstroke).
>>
>>- In living birds, the position of the acrocoracohumeral ligament
>>prevents dislocation of the shoulder during the upstroke. This is not
>>the situation in Archaeopteryx, where the ligament was situated as it
>>is in crocodiles.
>>
>>- The shoulder joint of Archaeopteryx was oriented in such a way so
>>that the wing could not be raised above the horizontal position.
>>
>>- Archaeopteryx lacked an ossified sternum for the attachment of the
>>flight muscles, and so would not have been a very powerful flyer.
>>
>>All of the above shows that Archaeopteryx was a poor flyer at best,
>>and lacked the refinements for flight found in living birds. An
>>excellent example of an intermediate form.
>>
>>So, do you want to debate, or are you going to run away again?
It certainly looks like you're avoiding the evidence, yet again.
>>>You make the claim
>>>that macroevolution is a fact of science. Someone RESPONDS
>>>TO YOUR CLAIM and asks for proof and all you can do,
>>>is try to turn the tables and ask them questions and
>>>tell them to prove God, or prove it does not happen,
>>>etc., etc., etc., etc.!
>>
>>I'm not asking you to prove God, and I never will. As far as I'm
>>concerned, that question is irrelevant to evolution. All I'm doing is
>>asking you to look at the anatomy. But we both know that you're not up
>>for that.
>>
>>
>>>Not once in this thread, has any of you idiots proved
>>>macroevolution and you damn well know it and trying
>>>to toss insults at me and lie about me lying,
>>
>>Feduccia doesn't think that Archaeopteryx was "nothing but a perching
>>bird". You know that. Hence, you lied. It's that simple.
>>
>>
>>>does not
>>>prove it
>>
>>I never said that it did. But let's face it: lies are all you have, so
>>that's what you'll fall back on.
>>
>>
>>>and is a red herring and you damn well know
>>>that as well and it is why you do it!
>>
>>Let's talk anatomy. Any other response will show that you're not
>>serious.
>>
>>And "Don't forget, Judas also left early."
