Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Biological Evolution ⇒

Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4531 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009

Normal Thread Display
Message 73 of 150 (545499)
02-03-2010 10:12 PM 		Reply to: Message 72 by slevesque
02-03-2010 5:16 PM

Wait a sec.
slevesque, why are you bothering with fossils anyway, since you - if you are indeed a YEC - believe that the world's age is measured only in thousands of years, not millions or billions?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by slevesque, posted 02-03-2010 5:16 PM slevesque has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by slevesque, posted 02-03-2010 11:50 PM ZenMonkey has replied
  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4531 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009

Normal Thread Display
Message 86 of 150 (545582)
02-04-2010 12:03 PM 		Reply to: Message 74 by slevesque
02-03-2010 11:50 PM

Re: Wait a sec.
slevesque writes:
​
ZenMonkey writes:
​
slevesque, why are you bothering with fossils anyway, since you - if you are indeed a YEC - believe that the world's age is measured only in thousands of years, not millions or billions?
Yes a very good question at that. When I talk about fossils and how they relate to the ToE, I will assume the ages assigned to them in order to find a discussion ground to focus on the topic.
​
Because if I had to come in and say ''well I think the dates are wrong anyways'', we can all see that the subject would quickly change to radiometric dating etc. etc.
​
No, I'm sorry, but if you don't accept the dating of fossil evidence, that invalidates any argument that you want to put forth regarding the order and relationship of that same evidence.
​
You can't have it both ways. I'm not asking you to justify your rejection of radiometric and other dating methods. However, if you really believe that all the fossil evidence is recent and roughly contemporaneous, then you have no basis whatsoever to claim that any particular fossil predates another.
​
Pick one or the other.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by slevesque, posted 02-03-2010 11:50 PM slevesque has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by slevesque, posted 02-04-2010 4:06 PM ZenMonkey has not replied
  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4531 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009

Normal Thread Display
Message 120 of 150 (545835)
02-05-2010 4:46 PM 		Reply to: Message 114 by slevesque
02-05-2010 4:05 PM

slevesque writes:
​
If a fossil had happened to fool a couple of paleontologist, maybe we wouldn't, in fact, have heard about it.
​
Please substantiate this assertion or withdraw it.
​
This allegation of professional dishonesty is baseless. (At least I think that misconduct or ignorance is what you're trying to imply.) It also doesn't make sense. Don't creationists commonly accuse paleontologists of promoting false fossil evidence, rather than trying to cover it up to hide their mistakes, or using fakes to support a "failed theory"? I'm not at all certain what you're saying here, other than you're trying to weasel out of your previous unsubtantiated claim in Message 36 that there were "scores of fake fossils" coming out of China. Yeah, I know that your quote came from a supposed interveiw with Feducia, but there doesn't appear to be any basis for him saying this either. I also note that you don't give a link or a citation for your quote. Where did it come from?
​
I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by slevesque, posted 02-05-2010 4:05 PM slevesque has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by slevesque, posted 02-05-2010 4:54 PM ZenMonkey has not replied
  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4531 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009

Normal Thread Display
Message 129 of 150 (545873)
02-05-2010 8:42 PM 		Reply to: Message 126 by DC85
02-05-2010 7:23 PM

Again with the dating.
DC85 writes:
​
I do believe before we continue we should understand the time periods we're talking about.
​
I still assert that, as a YEC, slevesque has no standing to assert anything whatsoever regarding the dating and relationships of fossil evidence. To continue to attempt to support his arguments by using evidence he does not in all honesty consider valid is arguing in bad faith.
​
I'm not trying to be a dick, but is it too much to ask someone to refrain from using evidence he or she does not really believe to be true?
​
I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by DC85, posted 02-05-2010 7:23 PM DC85 has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2010 8:52 PM ZenMonkey has not replied
 Message 132 by DC85, posted 02-05-2010 9:45 PM ZenMonkey has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024