Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 1:42 PM
28 online now:
Diomedes, Dr Adequate, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,640 Year: 3,677/19,786 Month: 672/1,087 Week: 41/221 Day: 12/29 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Author Topic:   Birds and Reptiles
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 76 of 135 (598773)
01-02-2011 6:25 AM


The Buzsaw Hypothesis & the evidence
Summing up:

1) It is claimed that the Buzsaw hypothesis is consistent with the Eden myth, aside from the question of whether this should be taken as evidence we must note that there are significant scientific and theological problems with the claim. For instance the story includes the presence of humans, while the scientific evidence is strongly against the existence of humans at the time the dinosaurs went extinct. Theologically the story requires the extension of part of the curse placed on the serpent to numerous species, which creationists would regard as including a number of different "kinds". There is nothing in the story that suggests that this is even reasonable - why should God afflict numerous animals not even related to the serpent with this curse ?

2) It is claimed that taxonomy supports the hypothesis, however this rests on a superficial look at an old classification based on evidence that turns out to be inadequate. Even older taxonomy does not hold that snakes are closely related to dinosaurs. (ABE: in addition, even the last few holdouts denying that birds are dinosaurs accept that birds are more closely related to dinosaurs than snakes are).

3) It is claimed that physical resemblances support the hypothesis, however this is based on a failure to appreciate the diversity of dinosaurs - even to the point of writing off actual fossils as "assumptions". Again this is based on taking a highly superficial view of the evidence and refusing to accept the great bulk of the real evidence.

4) Although it has not been mentioned in this thread it was claimed that the Buzsaw hypothesis explained the extinction of the dinosaurs. However this was not really true since it offered absolutely no reason to think that the curse would be extended to all dinosaurs. It was also worse than rival hypotheses since it utterly failed to explain the many extinctions of non-dinosaurian species which occurred at the same time.

Therefore, all 4 lines of argument FOR the Buzsaw hypothesis in fact work AGAINST it.

Edited by PaulK, : Minor addition (marked) plus a couple of typoes corrected


    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 135 (598776)
01-02-2011 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by PaulK
01-02-2011 5:17 AM


Re: Are Birds Dinosaurs?
PaulK writes:

........we would do better to use modern experts who ARE fully aware of the evidence - and THEY generally classify birds as dinosaurs.

Or, perhaps better, aware of the evidence that they want to see, as one of the cites linked puts it. I have long regarded this the case with a lot of evidence, for example, the evidence of the Exodus event and other Biblical data which has been cited.

PaulK writes:

There's plenty of reason to think that both birds and snakes cohabited with dinosaurs (and without your ad hoc additions to the Bible.........

As I said that's debatable. That debate is ongoing on the www science cites. Check it out.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 01-02-2011 5:17 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 01-02-2011 9:55 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 01-02-2011 12:14 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 81 by Nuggin, posted 01-02-2011 12:19 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 135 (598778)
01-02-2011 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by arachnophilia
01-02-2011 1:04 AM


Re: Comparing Similarities And Differences
arach... writes:

i know what you mean. but it's important to note (and i've pointed it out directly to him as well) as he keeps throwing around this "reptile" term, when "reptile" is really just an a completely arbitrary term that excludes birds and possibly dinosaurs by definition, and has no real relationship to any particular clade.

I use the term as I have because that's how I see it used on the websites. Sometimes it doesn't work well for me to designate modern reptiles. I agree with some of the scientists who don't regard birds as reptiles perse. Does that make me stupid and/or stubborn? That's debatable, depending on the mindset of one's making the mean spirited charges and insinuations.

Some very intelligent and educated members on this board are regarded as stupid and stubborn by others, depending on ideology and mindset. Some of us are a little more kindly in our responses to members of different mindsets than our own.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2011 1:04 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2011 7:47 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 79 of 135 (598779)
01-02-2011 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Buzsaw
01-02-2011 9:12 AM


The Biblical Exodus never happened and is irrelevant
Or, perhaps better, aware of the evidence that they want to see, as one of the cites linked puts it. I have long regarded this the case with a lot of evidence, for example, the evidence of the Exodus event and other Biblical data which has been cited.

Except when one of us starts a thread on the Exodus you never have any evidence to present.

Why do you continue to bring up silly fables that have been refuted in these Science threads?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2011 9:12 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 80 of 135 (598783)
01-02-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Buzsaw
01-02-2011 9:12 AM


Re: Are Birds Dinosaurs?
quote:

Or, perhaps better, aware of the evidence that they want to see, as one of the cites linked puts it. I have long regarded this the case with a lot of evidence, for example, the evidence of the Exodus event and other Biblical data which has been cited.

There's no sense in relying on experts who were unaware of large amounts of relevant evidence, Buz. So you can either use the opinion of modern experts or the evidence itself. Both are firmly against you. Although I must admit that the fact that scientists aren't gullible enough to fall for Wyatt's rubbish is hardly a reason NOT to trust their views.

quote:

As I said that's debatable. That debate is ongoing on the www science cites. Check it out.

As usual "debatable" means "a fact that Buzsaw refuses to accept".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2011 9:12 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2011 11:08 PM PaulK has responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 572 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 81 of 135 (598784)
01-02-2011 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Buzsaw
01-02-2011 9:12 AM


Re: Are Birds Dinosaurs?
for example, the evidence of the Exodus event and other Biblical data which has been cited.

Not only isn't there solid evidence for the events as laid out in the Exodus, the specifics contradict recorded history.

But, much more importantly, the Exodus is _VERY BAD_ theology.

If you bothered to think about it for even a fraction of a second, you would NEVER bring up Exodus in any discussion, much less one about Biblical Validity.

Just SOME of the issues:
#1) God states that he has hardened the Pharaoh's heart, meaning he has taken freewill out of the equation, decided Pharaoh's actions for him and then proceeds to punish him for doing as God made him do.

#2) God states in Exodus - "I am a jealous God, thou shalt have no other God's before me". There is NO REASON to make this statement unless you are defacto acknowledging that other Gods are real.

#3) The magic of the Pharaoh's priests PROVES that other Gods are real

#4) A benevolent God would not bring down a series of plagues upon an entire city to punish the actions of one man (particularly one man who is doing as God forces him to do)

#5) A Benevolent/All knowing God would not start with weak plagues and get progressively stronger if he knows only the last plague will work

#6) A benevolent/all powerful God would not need to use plagues at all, since he can just give the Jews invisibility, or make them giants, or give them flight, or teleport them, or make the Egyptians forget, or move all the egyptians, or make all the egyptians sleep for three days.... The number of NON-violent, benevolent choices available to an omnipotent being are literally endless.

Exodus is, in and of itself, sufficient reason to disbelieve everything else in the Bible. It's clear that the "God" of exodus is NOT something worth worshiping.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2011 9:12 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2011 7:08 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 135 (598805)
01-02-2011 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Nuggin
01-02-2011 12:19 PM


Re: Are Birds Dinosaurs?
Nuggen, notice the message title. In that this thread is not about debating the Exodus or theological matters, don't expect a response from me to your message relating to that. I cited it as an example of scientists seeing what they want to see regarding birds and dinos etc.

We all have somewhat of a tendency to see what we want to see, just as you did here in your response.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Nuggin, posted 01-02-2011 12:19 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 57 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 83 of 135 (598806)
01-02-2011 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Buzsaw
01-02-2011 9:30 AM


Re: Comparing Similarities And Differences
PaulK writes:

........we would do better to use modern experts who ARE fully aware of the evidence - and THEY generally classify birds as dinosaurs.

Buzsaw writes:

Or, perhaps better, aware of the evidence that they want to see, as one of the cites linked puts it. I have long regarded this the case with a lot of evidence, for example, the evidence of the Exodus event and other Biblical data which has been cited.

ruben, martin, and feduccia are crackpots. alleging conspiracy is the last resort of crackpots. if they had evidence they think that other paleontologists don't want to see, they should submit to journals and subject it to peer review. science does not work by hiding evidence that falsifies things; it works by intentionally seeking out. nobel prizes are given for research that overturn established theories.

instead, they submit papers that don't even say anything about birds, or come to illogical conclusions. like the business where they claim to prove that the avian lung couldn't have evolved from even early birds, and this disproves the dinosaurian evolution of birds because.... well they don't seem to know, either. but they'll sure trumpet it in the news.

now, all of their concerns have actually been addressed, and they continue in the same vein. perhaps it's really them who refuse to see evidence. oh, and a correct to an above statement. it's not that they don't believe theropods are dinosaurs, it's that they don't believe maniraptors are theropods. which is even more phenomenally stupid.

Buzsaw writes:

As I said that's debatable. That debate is ongoing on the www science cites. Check it out.

buz, i think it's pretty clear that a lot of the participants of this thread actually have checked it out. journalists like controversy, because it makes a story more engaging. and this is the primary problem with science journalism -- the journalists often try to bolster controversy where there really isn't any. those guys i mentioned above? they are really the only working paleontologists who question the dinosaurian origin of birds. and one of them isn't a paleontologist. there is no controversy. these guys are cranks.

I use the term as I have because that's how I see it used on the websites. Sometimes it doesn't work well for me to designate modern reptiles. I agree with some of the scientists who don't regard birds as reptiles perse.

if you talk to scientists, they'll use the term sauropsid. birds are sauropsids. "reptile" is a colloquial term, and really has not scientific meaning. it's paraphyletic, and not related to any clade. birds are not reptiles because the colloquial term "reptile" is defined to exclude birds. that's it. it has no bearing on the scientific status of birds and their relation to "reptiles" through dinosaurs. in any case, quite a lot of paleontologists will argue that "reptile" shouldn't include dinosaurs either.

Does that make me stupid and/or stubborn? That's debatable, depending on the mindset of one's making the mean spirited charges and insinuations.

considering that every time you've said "debatable" you've actually meant "yes", well. it's a good thing that you've also always been wrong.

Edited by arachnophilia, : forgot sig


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2011 9:30 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 135 (598817)
01-02-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by PaulK
01-02-2011 12:14 PM


Re: Observation Needed To Falsify
PaulK writes:

There's no sense in relying on experts who were unaware of large amounts of relevant evidence, Buz. So you can either use the opinion of modern experts or the evidence itself. Both are firmly against you. Although I must admit that the fact that scientists aren't gullible enough to fall for Wyatt's rubbish is hardly a reason NOT to trust their views.

Scientists were involved with this discovery. IMO, the ones who see what they want to see would go in there to falsify it and put it to rest if they were objective. Imo, they're afraid that if they do it would devastate some of their assumptions.

This may be the case with other research-able data which would support the Biblical record.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 01-02-2011 12:14 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Nuggin, posted 01-02-2011 11:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Panda, posted 01-02-2011 11:18 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 87 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2011 1:36 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2011 5:41 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 89 by jar, posted 01-03-2011 8:52 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 572 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 85 of 135 (598819)
01-02-2011 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
01-02-2011 11:08 PM


Re: Observation Needed To Falsify
Scientists were involved with this discovery. IMO, the ones who see what they want to see would go in there to falsify it and put it to rest if they were objective. Imo, they're afraid that if they do it would devastate some of their assumptions.

This may be the case with other research-able data which would support the Biblical record.

You opinion doesn't really matter. What matters are facts.

You are assuming that because the scientists don't agree with you, they aren't objective. Guess what, agreeing with you is not a criteria for objectivity.

And as far as "devastating" some assumptions, you act as though the "assumptions" exist in theory only. As though real scientists weren't using real science to produce real results.

If you showed us a passage in the Bible that said that gravity doesn't exist, would everything suddenly fall up because our "assumptions" had been devastated?

Lastly, this whole concept of "supporting the Biblical record" is a joke. It doesn't matter if ONE THING in the Bible is true, it has no bearing on some OTHER THING in the Bible.

There could actually have been a "good Samaritan", that doesn't mean that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs just like on the Flintstones.

Harry Potter books regularly reference London. London is a place which actually exists. That doesn't make Harry's magic school real.

The Lord of the Rings talks about a gold ring. I OWN a gold ring. I know they exist. Doesn't make elves real.

The Bible is set in a particular area during a particular time period. Pointing out that X really existing in that area does not support claims that so and so could do magic trick Y in another area.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2011 11:08 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1792 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 86 of 135 (598821)
01-02-2011 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
01-02-2011 11:08 PM


Re: Observation Needed To Falsify
Buzsaw writes:

Scientists were involved with this discovery. IMO, the ones who see what they want to see would go in there to falsify it and put it to rest if they were objective. Imo, they're afraid that if they do it would devastate some of their assumptions.

This may be the case with other research-able data which would support the Biblical record.


There are many religious scientists, yes?
Do you think that they do not want to see evidence that supports the Bible?
Can you explain why all these Christian scientists are not discovering evidence that supports the Bible?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2011 11:08 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 57 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 87 of 135 (598839)
01-03-2011 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
01-02-2011 11:08 PM


off topic
Buzsaw writes:

Scientists were involved with this discovery. IMO, the ones who see what they want to see would go in there to falsify it and put it to rest if they were objective. Imo, they're afraid that if they do it would devastate some of their assumptions.

the biblical exodus is not the topic of this thread. please take those comments somewhere where they are on topic. i'm interested in discussing dinosaurian evolution here.

in any case, the studies you cited above that were on topic were indeed written by scientists, as were the quotes in the press releases. those scientists happen to be hacks, and are the ones who only see what they want to see -- as evidenced by my posts above. the rest of the scientific community, in those cases, has gone in and falsified most (all?) of their claims. i hesitate to say "all" because some of their research doesn't even actually say what they claim it does in news.

someone on another message board related the following story:

quote:
Reminds me of the 2002 SVP. I witnessed Greg Paul accosting Larry Martin in the hallway and asking him what he had to say now that we know dromaeosaurs had feathers.

Larry: "Well, then they're not dinosaurs. They can't be dinosaurs, because if they had feathers that means they're living in the trees". (quote is not exact, but that's what he said)



אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2011 11:08 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 88 of 135 (598845)
01-03-2011 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
01-02-2011 11:08 PM


Re: Observation Needed To Falsify
quote:

Scientists were involved with this discovery. IMO, the ones who see what they want to see would go in there to falsify it and put it to rest if they were objective. Imo, they're afraid that if they do it would devastate some of their assumptions.

Of course you are stretching the truth more than a little here. There were no significant discoveries. Moller wasn't present on Wyatt's original expedition and isn't even credited with any "discoveries" in the material I've seen, We also know that Moller is hopelessly (and wilfully) ignorant of Egyptology to the point of endorsing Wyatt's nonsensical rewrite of Egyptian history. The reason why scientists DON'T bother to investigate is obvious - there's nothing that would justify the expense.

And let us not forget that when the evidence is available a more detailed look almost always refutes your position. Why expect this time to be any different ? Don't forget that is all it takes to falsify Wyatt and Moller's rewrite of history (which YOU don't dare discuss).

And I notice that you STILL have produced no evidence that ANY scientist thinks that birds and dinosaurs did not cohabit. (the "birds are not dinosaurs" crew think that birds evolved even earlier than mainstream paleontologists believe, so appealing to their views on that point would be especially stupid)

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2011 11:08 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 135 (598846)
01-03-2011 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
01-02-2011 11:08 PM


Re: Observation Needed To Falsify
And we are still waiting for you to actually present any evidence related to the Biblical Exodus over at Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2011 11:08 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 135 (598861)
01-03-2011 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by arachnophilia
12-30-2010 7:32 PM


Re: Look at the feets!
in any case, i personally feel that feathers probably go back just slightly further than that, perhaps to basal archosaurs, and go hand-in-hand with the evolution of endotherms. for instance, pterosaurs sometimes have "hair" covering their bodies, and iirc, these "hairs" are strongly related to feathers -- they just didn't evolve into the flight surfaces and were strictly used for warmth.

In the other thread, in Message 99, RAZD provided this link:

http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm

It has a shit-ton of information so have fun!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 12-30-2010 7:32 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019