- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
Originally posted by no1marauderTry again.
If you are saying ostriches have teeth, you are wrong. From wikipedia:
Lacking teeth, they swallow pebbles that help to grind the swallowed foods in the gizzard.
No modern birds have teeth, period. Your statement was incorrect. Please don't teach kids about all them modern birds running around with teeth.
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
Originally posted by LemonJelloLemon jello, Whether evolution and creation are faith based is not my primary concern, that is for speculative pusuits. I am pursuing a more scientific approach, because evolutionist have in the past claimed it was a science and I disagree. I once was an evolutionist, but not any more.
[b]I asked you if evolution was faith based, not that you couldn't use science methods upon natural occurrences!
and i answered no, evolution is not necessarily faith based. there is at least one fundamental difference between evolution and creationism and this difference breaks down along lines of faith and consequently along the lines of the na ...[text shortened]... rarily think up some supernatural being and point his finger and say 'He must have done it.' [/b]
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
Originally posted by frogstompI'm not trying to grandstand, though it may not be a bad idea. How is my approach to science distorted? You haven't answered any of my questions.
He really hasnt a clue, thinking he can grandstand and get people to agree with his distorted ideas of how science works.
That proves that your understanding of the issue is lacking.
Originally posted by LangtreeIs that the same pamphlet from which you were "educated" concerning the 2nd law of thermodynamics? If so, you ought to burn that pamphlet before it strikes again.
OOOOH, insults!!!! I did look it up, I was wrong. I misread something in a pamphet, I have, concerning Archaeopteryx. Comparing it with the ostrich.
Well, I just need to be more careful.😳
Originally posted by LangtreeTry again.
OOOOH, insults!!!! I did look it up, I was wrong. I misread something in a pamphet, I have, concerning Archaeopteryx. Comparing it with the ostrich.
Well, I just need to be more careful.😳
BTW, Archaeopteryx looks like a pretty good "transitional fossil" doesn't it?
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
Originally posted by no1marauderNo. Archaeopteryx is indeed controverial, but it is not the final answer. I'm not troubled by the controversy. I must depart now, but I will do further research on both sides of the issue. I remember, that Fred Hoyle claimed that Archaeopteryx was a hoax.
Try again.
BTW, Archaeopteryx looks like a pretty good "transitional fossil" doesn't it?
Originally posted by LangtreeThis guy you mean?
No. Archaeopteryx is indeed controverial, but it is not the final answer. I'm not troubled by the controversy. I must depart now, but I will do further research on both sides of the issue. I remember, that Fred Hoyle claimed that Archaeopteryx was a hoax.
"In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of chemical evolution to explain the naturalistic Origin of life. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
Originally posted by bbarrVery funny. It stillis typical for evolutionists to lash out with insults.
Is that the same pamphlet from which you were "educated" concerning the 2nd law of thermodynamics? If so, you ought to burn that pamphlet before it strikes again.
The reason why Jello wants to hear me say creationism is faith based is because evolution is faith based. It requires more faith to believe in evolution. Hence, Jello's insistence on reading the answer he wanted to hear. This way he can avoid rational dscourse, knowing full well that evolution is a theory is crisis.
Originally posted by LangtreeNo, you're funny. You're an unintentional parody of every silly creationist that has passed through these forums. You trot out the very same claims (about entropy, for instance, or "problems" with radiometric dating, or transitional fossils), which educated folk here will refute in due course, and you will either ignore or fail to understand these refutations. You still have yet to admit that you just didn't understand the notion of entropy you were employing in your post above, and that you were mistaken in thinking that the 2nd law of thermodynamics presents a problem for evolutionary theory.
Very funny. It stillis typical for evolutionists to lash out with insults.
The reason why Jello wants to hear me say creationism is faith based is because evolution is faith based. It requires more faith to believe in evolution. Hence, Jello's insistence on reading the answer he wanted to hear. This way he can avoid rational dscourse, knowing full well that evolution is a theory is crisis.
Oh well, I guess you can always edit that little snafu out of the thread before you print it off and show it to your students.
a little bit of interesting info aout how creationists work.
by Wesley R. Elsberry
Last year (1994), Jim Pattison made two claims concerning the Natural History Museum's Archaeopteryx specimen. The first was that no researchers had been allowed access since Sir Fred Hoyle's public charges of "fraud" concerning the specimen. The second claim was that a specific geologist named John McKay was denied access to the specimen sometime in the early 1990's.
Jim made his claims in the Controv Echo on FidoNet, and I disputed them at the time, and promised to contact the NHM to verify the real situation.
Well, it took a bit longer than I thought, but I finally figured out how to send email to the NHM, and I contacted Angela Milner, one of the "et alia" of Charig et alia 1986. I presented Jim's claims to Milner, and asked for her response to the claims. The following is her responding email to me on the topic.
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 95 16:56:27 GMT
From: (Angela Milner)
Message-Id: <60988.acm@nhm.ac.uk>
To: welsberr@orca.tamu.edu
Subject: Archaeopteryx
In answer to your two questions:
1. No bona-fide scientific researcher has ever been denied access to the London specimen of Archaeopteryx either before or since Hoyle. We do not, however, provide access on demand to casual enquirers without an advance appointment.
2. I have no record of any communication from the person you cite, perhaps you should follow up that claim with him directly in the first instance.
Yours sincerely
Angela Milner
(Head of Vertebrates Division)
==========================================================
Angela Milner
Department of Palaeontology
The Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
London SW7 5BD, England
a few more things Hoyle et al based his "forgery" on engravings not photographs.
the london specimen is here:
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/archaeopteryx/Owen1864.jpg
(dark branching encrustations of manganese oxide) along the crack in the upper left of the specimen, overlapping the feather impressions. As documented by Charig et al., these have perfect mirror-image equivalents on the counterslab, and would be very difficult to forge:
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/archaeopteryx/Owen1864_dend.jpg