quote:

---

Originally posted by trogdor

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paulos23

Yes, I was correct. Here are the links:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC352.html
and
nature.com

And, the claim was made in a non-peer reviewed magazine, not by published scientests. Just an example of someone
pulling a fast one to make a buck and someone not looking closely enough. It happens. However, science was able to pull
something valuable from this mess.

---

quote:

---

And, the claim was made in a non-peer reviewed magazine, not by published scientests. Just an example of someone pulling a fast one to make a buck and someone not looking closely enough. It happens.

---

(bill) My point was not to highlight that the fossils was a fake, but rather to highlight that they are still looking for that "missing link" that does connect birds and dinos.

---

Yes science will continue to look for new discoveries. that is how humankind progresses.


[qoute] Sloan described it as, "a missing link that would connect dinosaurs and birds". He did not say it was another missing link that would connect dinosaurs and birds. Demonstrating that they are still looking for a missing link that connects birds to dinos...

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

However, science was able to pull something valuable from this mess

---

(bill) Yes, it demonstrated that they have no missing links that connect birds and dinos and are still looking...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

Hmmm.

Looks

like

I'm

not

gonna

get

a

clean

page,

one

with

no

idiot,

triathlon

links

to

fuck

up

the

format.

Ah

well.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HalfMooner

Filthy promised:

quote:

---

If an ignorant redneck like me can learn it, anybody can.

---

Thank you, Filthy, I needed that formatting information, too.

---

quote:

---

well filth,
my bad. I was wondering what the fuck was up with my post. and now I've messed up yours
I will try to get you a new page

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

Sorry Bill, but it certainly was not fully a bird.

The claim has ben made many times and it is a reflection of creationist tunnel vision that they are still blathering about it.

quote:

---

Claim CC214.1.1:
Archaeopteryx was fully bird. It had fully formed wings and feathers.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 79-80.
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 85.
Response:
Archaeopteryx is defined to be a bird (technically, an avialan). However, it had many more dinosaurian traits than bird traits. Its main bird traits are
long external nostrils.
quadrate and quadratojugal (two jaw bones) not sutured together.
palatine bones that have three extensions.
all teeth lacking serrations.
large lateral furrows in top rear body of the vertebrae.

Other birdlike traits of Archaeopteryx are found also on several non-avian dinosaurs. These traits include feathers, a furcula (wishbone) fused at the midline, and a pubis elongate and directed backward. The birdlike hallux (toe) attributed to Archaeopteryx may be an error due to poor preservation (Middleton 2002).

Dinosaurian traits include the following:
no bill
teeth on premaxilla and maxilla bones
nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole)
neck attached to skull from the rear
center of cervical vertebrae that have simple concave articular facets
long bony tail; no pygostyle
ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes, and not articulated with the sternum
sacrum that occupies six vertebrae
small thoracic girdle
metacarpals free (except third metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible
claws on three unfused digits
pelvic girdle and femur joint shaped like those of archosaurs in many details
bones of pelvis unfused
and over 100 other differences from birds (Chiappe 2002; Norell and Clarke 2001).

In addition, Archaeopteryx was intermediate between dinosaurs and modern birds in the shape of the coracoid and humerus bones and the brain (Elzanowski 2002; Nedin 1999).

---

Now then, when are we going to learn and starting using the url code?I for one, am getting tired of fifteen foot links fucking up the format and making the page a pain in the ass to read.

Here it is again: All you've got to do is paste the address between the quotation marks and the bit of text you want to be the link between the center parenthesis, thus:

[url='whatever_ the_link_is']Whaddafuck?[/url].

This will give you Whaddafuck in blue and clickable. I have modified the quotation marks so that the example wouldn't work. Turn the apostrophies back into a quotation marks, and you will get this:

Whaddafuck?

Which will give you an error, but go ahead and click the fucker anyway.

If an ignorant redneck like me can learn it, anybody can.

---

quote:

---

Sorry Bill, but it certainly was not fully a bird. The claim has ben made many times and it is a reflection of creationist tunnel vision that they are still blathering about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marfknox

Bill, you fail to understand many thing regarding the bird-dinosaur connection. First of all, you keep saying that supposedly it was already established so why would we need a "transitional fossil", but you never explain how it has been established. The theory that birds evolved from a specific group of dinosaurs called theropods has been established by other comparisons. Read all about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theropod

quote:

---

Among the features linking theropods to birds are the three-toed foot, a wishbone, air-filled bones, and (in some cases) feathers and brooding of the eggs.

---

Also, you say Archaeopteryx was a bird, but it has been called a protobird or primitive bird because of pronounced similarities to dinosaurs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

quote:

---

Archaeopteryx was similar in size and shape to a magpie, with short, broad wings and a long tail. The feathers resemble those of living birds, but Archaeopteryx was rather different from any bird we know of today: it had jaws lined with sharp teeth, three fingers ending in curving claws, and a long bony tail.

---

The matter over bird evolution from dinosaurs is rather complicated and all the pieces aren't there, but there is certainly enough of the puzzel put together at this point to see that there is a connection. By the way, of all the science you posted about archaeopteryx, did it ever occur to you that you are using science. That in fact, the only way we can prove anything about the nature of the natural world is through science? Only science disproves bad science. Only scientific testing gives more evidence for or against a theory. Your religious ideas are not based on science. They are based on Biblical assumptions. And whenever science doesn't produce the results you want, you throw it out. And whenever science hasn't gotten around to completely proving without a shadow of a doubt something that doesn't mesh with your narrow-minded theology, you point at any gaps in knowledge as evidence of your claims. You could be worse, I suppose. You could be religiously defiant even in the face of evidence that proves without a shadow of a doubt - such as flat earthers. So yours is simply a milder form of denial.

Seriously, Bill, what the hell do these scientists as a whole have as their motivation to be lying to themselves and everyone else? Many of them are Christian and other religions. How can there possibily be this worldwide, 150-year-old conspiracy of willful ignorance in the face of plain evidence to the contrary among people whose careers are devoted to discovering the truth about the natural world?

---

quote:

---

The matter over bird evolution from dinosaurs is rather complicated and all the pieces aren't there, but there is certainly enough of the puzzel put together at this point to see that there is a connection.

---

quote:

---

By the way, of all the science you posted about archaeopteryx, did it ever occur to you that you are using science.

---

quote:

---

That in fact, the only way we can prove anything about the nature of the natural world is through science? Only science disproves bad science. Only scientific testing gives more evidence for or against a theory.

---

quote:

---

Your religious ideas are not based on science.

---

quote:

---

They are based on Biblical assumptions.

---

quote:

---

And whenever science doesn't produce the results you want, you throw it out. And whenever science hasn't gotten around to completely proving without a shadow of a doubt something that doesn't mesh with your narrow-minded theology,

---

quote:

---

you point at any gaps in knowledge as evidence of your claims.

---

quote:

---

You could be worse, I suppose. You could be religiously defiant even in the face of evidence that proves without a shadow of a doubt - such as flat earthers. So yours is simply a milder form of denial.

---

quote:

---

Seriously, Bill, what the hell do these scientists as a whole have as their motivation to be lying to themselves

---

quote:

---

and everyone else?

---

quote:

---

Many of them are Christian and other religions. How can there possibily be this worldwide, 150-year-old conspiracy of willful ignorance in the face of plain evide

quote:

---

Originally posted by pleco

Liar.

---

quote:

---

Liar.

---

quote:

---

Sorry Bill, but it certainly was not fully a bird. The claim has ben made many times and it is a reflection of creationist tunnel vision that they are still blathering about it.

---

quote:

---

(bill) This dude is no creationist and even he can fully admit that the critter is a bird.

Dr. Alan Feduccia, professor and former head of biology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the author of the encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds (1999).

Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble' is going to change that."

Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms by V. Morell, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February 1993.

And:

"Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in a modern sense, a bird."

Science 259:790-793 (1993).

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/archaeopteryx.htm

---

quote:

---

One of the most outspoken critics of dinosaur to bird evolution is Dr. Alan Feduccia, professor and former head of biology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the author of the encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds (1999).

Feduccia is a sincere evolutionist, and believes that the common ancestor of both ancient and modern bird orders was a small, ground-dwelling reptile that took to the trees for hiding, sleeping, or nesting. When it comes to Archae, however, he believes it was just one of nature's experiments. One of his most well-known quotes (and perhaps the most despised among many evolutionists) was that made in February of 1993.

---

quote:

---

Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).

---