62 million year old bird fossil with bony teeth found.

[tas8831]

This statement is most amusing. By "studied" you clearly mean "listened to creationists non-arguments and outright lies with respect to dating methods".

If you had actual arguments? You'd have presented these ... ahem... "flaws" and "assumptions" and "speculations".

This is how we know you are wrong, here.

Yeah, I mean it is pretty obvious that when he says "studied" material, he means he read some creationist websites or books or something and took their assertions as truth. Tha tis the most obvious conclusion, seeing as how his every "argument" boils down to either the blind application of YEC mantras, or the repetition of the same.

 

[tas8831]

They whine to the mods, to close any thread i start on scientific examination of this theory.

LOL!

Mr. Christian with his insults and blabbering...Poor baby...

You know, the EASIEST and most effective way to avoid making a fool of yourself and avoid having your threads devolve into you slinging mud and whining and never discussing science, is to not be such a whiny, self-righteous, egotistical blowhard.

Stop pretending that your every utterance is gospel, that your every proclamation is beyond reproach. Realize that you are NOT the ultimate scientific authority - especially on things that you complain about having too much science words in!

Actually read and try to understand the criticisms leveled at your supposed science claims.

Heck, you might even learn enough not to keep making a fool of yourself.

"Eve gene" - THAT is a prime example.

When it was explained that there was no such thing and that your canid paper only used some markers in mtDNA, instead of ranting and raving and whining, you could have maybe read the things that people linked? Maybe listened and wondered why nobody had heard of that?

Maybe even have read YOUR OWN LINKS?

But no - you just went on rages of insults and put downs.

Maybe that is just you.

Yeah, that is probably just you.

 

[Valjean]

The FACT is, there is no verifiable way to calculate theses dates, and no reliable measurement that is not fraught with assumptions and speculation.

You must have a wildly different concept of reliability and verification from the rest of us.

You seem to find the Bible reliable and verifiable, on far less evidence than has been presented for just about any scientific theory. How do you support this opinion?

I'm the skeptic, here, and will not be persuaded by bullying nor assertions.

Nor will you be persuaded by facts or reason, apparently.
I'm still wondering what facts and reason persuaded you that your biblical interpretations are reliable.

Your patronizing, demeaning, belittling comments make intelligent debate with you impossible.

..believe whatever you want.. but insulting, ad hominem laced discussion with hostiles is of no interest to me.

You may feel patronized and demeaned, but the question is: are these comments factual or reasonable conclusions?

 

[tas8831]

Good dodge. So you confirm that 'Science!', is owned by establishment elites, and is not open to anyone. It has become a religion, with a heirarchy of priests, and exclusive control of information. It is no longer a method of discovery, but is a means of indoctrination.

Your arguments illustrate that perception.

I cannot use 'Science!', according to you, because i lack the credentials.

David Levy "lacks credentials", yet he has published many scientific papers.

"Levy was born in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, in 1948. He developed an interest in astronomy at an early age. However, he pursued and received bachelor's and master's degrees in English literature.[1]

Levy went on to discover 22 comets, either independently or with Gene and Carolyn Shoemaker. He has written 34 books, mostly on astronomical subjects, such as The Quest for Comets, a biography of Pluto-discoverer Clyde Tombaugh in 2006, and his tribute to Gene Shoemaker in Shoemaker by Levy. He has provided periodic articles for Sky and Telescope magazine,[1] as well as Parade Magazine, Sky News and, most recently, Astronomy Magazine."​

You know why he got published?

Because he didn't rely on conspiracy theories and misrepresentation and goofy illogical interpretations of other peoples' work and nonsense and religious fanaticism to try to get his work published.
he didn't try to browbeat people who criticized his work - primarily because unlike you, Levy actually took the time to LEARN about the subject, as opposed to just reading creationist garbage and running with it.
He didn't whine to his collaborators about "jargon" and "technobabble" and the scientific priesthood that tries to hoodwink the public.

He was smart, and he did the work.

You write laughably incoherent and counterfactual child's garbage then whine when your errors are documented, opting to, instead of correcting those errors, call people names and whine like a canid.

You are a creationist.

 

[tas8831]

None of the pseudoscience pretenders will engage me in actual scientific debate, or discussion

1. I only see one pseudoscience pretender on this forum.
2. I tried many times to get you focused on the science - even started a couple of new threads to discuss some of your off-topic proclamations, but you prefer to hone in on some perceived slight as an excuse to whine and cry and name call and ignore the science.

And you did this with pretty much EVERYONE that took part in your bogus 'evidence' thread. You also hid behind your requirement that everyone (but you, of course) adhered to your "rules." You don't get to make the rules on a public forum, especially if you are the greatest offender.

, but they will only ridicule, accuse, smear, and distort my posts, to promote their religious opinion about common ancestry.

You made these claims a lot, yet as is pretty much the case with every creationist on here, when asked to show where these horrible offenses were, you bailed.

You repeatedly accused me, for example, of taking your quotes out of context. Even when I reproduced your ENTIRE posts showing that I did not, you still hid behind the accusation.

Like your claim about how 'DNA analyses are different in the genes' or whatever primitive nonsense it was. The entire post you made the claim did not in any way render my quote out of context. But there you were, whining away and not once did you try to correct me or defend your claim. Just hid behind false witness.

So quit making excuses and lay your cards on the table - but I do hope they are better than your previous forays. For your ego's sake.

Lastly, as has already been noted - it is hilarious to me that you use the word "religious" as an insult to us.

I guess in your zeal of feel as though you've 'dominated', you fail to see how you continue to make a mockery of your own position.

Your own "religious position."

 

[Valjean]

You have it backwards. I am alone in defending science from ideological propagandists who use it to promote their religious beliefs.

I thought science was the sworn enemy of unevidenced, unfounded beliefs.

Open inquiry is not promoted in this subforum, but mandated conformity of belief. This is observable reality, and you are a party to this censorship.

We're open to whatever actual evidence you can present. If our opinions seem uniform it's probably because we're working from the same set of facts.

 

[ecco]

So you confirm that 'Science!', is owned by establishment elites, and is not open to anyone. It has become a religion, with a heirarchy of priests, and exclusive control of information.

Every year about 100,000 people get degrees in biological sciences. That seems pretty open to anyone.

Religion gets about 10,000 grads per year.

A lot more people are interested in biological sciences than in religion. I wonder why. Maybe they go to religious forums and evaluate the knowledge of intelligence of posters.

 

[viole]

I don't see any evidence for this belief. Similarity of design does not indicate descendancy. That is merely a religious belief, not science.

What do you mean with similarity of design? God reused the same design for bonobos, gorillas, chimps and us, the pinnacle of His creation?

What happened? Got tired at the sixth day and got Lazy? No wonder He needed a rest

So, joking aside. What is more likely: that we and gorillas share a common ancestor, or that God thought gorillas are so cool, for some reason, that He decided to create the whole Universe for a being, the very being His son will incarnate into, the very being in His image, etc, etc, to look like a hairless gorilla?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What do you mean with similarity of design? God reused the same design for bonobos, gorillas, chimps and us, the pinnacle of His creation?

What happened? Got tired at the sixth day and got Lazy? No wonder He needed a rest

So, joking aside. What is more likely: that we and gorillas share a common ancestor, or that God thought gorillas are so cool, for some reason, that He decided to create the whole Universe for a being, the very being His son will incarnate into, the very being in His image, etc, etc, to look like a hairless gorilla?

Ciao

- viole

Well... it was the 6th day, and God was running really late-- everything was behind schedule.

(who knew that making that many fjords would be so time consuming? Not to mention getting the exact right shade of blue for certain parrots.... )

So, really, making humans was kind of a Rush Job, and God had to delegate the process.

God: "Okay, everything looks good. What's next on the list?"
Angel Creation Supervisor: "Humans, Lord. We need to make people."
God: "What? I thought we started that on Day 1?"
Angel: "No, Lord, there was no place to put them yet. Remember?"
God: "Oh, yeah. Hmmmm.... what do you have that we could use?"
Angel: "Well, we have a short run of T-Rexes. They are Destined to be destroyed in the upcoming Flood anyway. We could use them as a template?"
God: "Naaah. Those are a Joke Animal. See the tiny hands?"
Angel: "Oh, that's right. What about the Duck Billed Platypus?"
God: "Wait, wasn't that the one we did on Thursday, after that extended beer party?"
Angel: "Yes, Lord. You were skunk-faced for sure. That was quite the party."
God: *sigh* "Yes it was. But no, what else you got?"
Angel: "Badgers look good-- they are clever, fierce, won't take 'no' for an answer."
God: "Yeah, but aren't they solitary most of the time?"
Angel: "Oh, yes, they are. Not much for building civilizations, those badgers. Hmmm.... oh! How about monkeys? They are clever beasts, and have these cute tiny hands. Perfect for civilization building."
God: "Yes, but don't they have tails?"
Angel: "Yes they do. What's wrong with tails?"
God: "Tails don't work with clothing. You know, after the first one messes up, they start wearing clothing?"
Angel: "Messes up?"
God: "It's in paragraph 13, right after the Garden sketch."
Angel: "Oh, yeah, I see it now... no, tails would be a bit of a problem. Hmmmm.... .oh! Some of the clever monkeys don't have tails. The Ape Family. Really nice bunch they are, too. Mostly vegetarians, quite peaceful. Content to sit around, pretty much all day, munching leaves and fruits."
God: "What? We can't have that! Buncha snowflakes. Do any of them eat meat?"
Angel: "Well, the Chimpanzees do, sometimes. The males can be kinda mean."
God: "Perfect-- only make them meaner, and get rid of the fur. That whole clothes sketch, don't you know."
Angel: "Got it-- we'll get right on that. Let's see... Schnider has his Lunch Break coming up, I'll have him skip that, and make Humans instead."
God: "Excellent. Speaking of lunch, what's for bar-b-que today?"
Angel: "We have some leftover unicorn. And I think there's a bit of dragon too."
God: "Didn't we eat all of those, on Thursday?"
Angel: "Oh, yeah... we did. How about roasted pegasus, instead?"
God: "Sounds good--be sure it's properly par-boiled, though. I hate the taste of feathers."

 

[viole]

Well... it was the 6th day, and God was running really late-- everything was behind schedule.

(who knew that making that many fjords would be so time consuming? Not to mention getting the exact right shade of blue for certain parrots.... )

So, really, making humans was kind of a Rush Job, and God had to delegate the process.

God: "Okay, everything looks good. What's next on the list?"
Angel Creation Supervisor: "Humans, Lord. We need to make people."
God: "What? I thought we started that on Day 1?"
Angel: "No, Lord, there was no place to put them yet. Remember?"
God: "Oh, yeah. Hmmmm.... what do you have that we could use?"
Angel: "Well, we have a short run of T-Rexes. They are Destined to be destroyed in the upcoming Flood anyway. We could use them as a template?"
God: "Naaah. Those are a Joke Animal. See the tiny hands?"
Angel: "Oh, that's right. What about the Duck Billed Platypus?"
God: "Wait, wasn't that the one we did on Thursday, after that extended beer party?"
Angel: "Yes, Lord. You were skunk-faced for sure. That was quite the party."
God: *sigh* "Yes it was. But no, what else you got?"
Angel: "Badgers look good-- they are clever, fierce, won't take 'no' for an answer."
God: "Yeah, but aren't they solitary most of the time?"
Angel: "Oh, yes, they are. Not much for building civilizations, those badgers. Hmmm.... oh! How about monkeys? They are clever beasts, and have these cute tiny hands. Perfect for civilization building."
God: "Yes, but don't they have tails?"
Angel: "Yes they do. What's wrong with tails?"
God: "Tails don't work with clothing. You know, after the first one messes up, they start wearing clothing?"
Angel: "Messes up?"
God: "It's in paragraph 13, right after the Garden sketch."
Angel: "Oh, yeah, I see it now... no, tails would be a bit of a problem. Hmmmm.... .oh! Some of the clever monkeys don't have tails. The Ape Family. Really nice bunch they are, too. Mostly vegetarians, quite peaceful. Content to sit around, pretty much all day, munching leaves and fruits."
God: "What? We can't have that! Buncha snowflakes. Do any of them eat meat?"
Angel: "Well, the Chimpanzees do, sometimes. The males can be kinda mean."
God: "Perfect-- only make them meaner, and get rid of the fur. That whole clothes sketch, don't you know."
Angel: "Got it-- we'll get right on that. Let's see... Schnider has his Lunch Break coming up, I'll have him skip that, and make Humans instead."
God: "Excellent. Speaking of lunch, what's for bar-b-que today?"
Angel: "We have some leftover unicorn. And I think there's a bit of dragon too."
God: "Didn't we eat all of those, on Thursday?"
Angel: "Oh, yeah... we did. How about roasted pegasus, instead?"
God: "Sounds good--be sure it's properly par-boiled, though. I hate the taste of feathers."

Reminds me of Mr. Deity,

Ciao

- viole

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Reminds me of Mr. Deity,

Ciao

- viole

That was exactly the tone I was going for. Thanks!

 

[gnostic]

My problems with this article:

1. Ancient dates of '62 million years!' are asserted, with no basis in fact.
2. Extinct birds (and other organisms) are legion, and do not prove or indicate common ancestry.
3. This highly complex bird appears suddenly in the fossil record, with no transitional forms to explain its origins.
4. Speculations about ancient dating.. 'millions & millions of years!', are conjectured, believed, and asserted, but have no verifiable scientific evidence. Circular reasoning is used to arrive at the dating of these kinds of fossils.
5. This is a religious belief, masquerading as 'Science!', that all organisms share common ancestry.

Other than these few minor not picks, it is a fine article, and expresses the religious belief in universal common ancestry very well.

All you have written, are just matter of your personal opinions. Opinions without evidence. And opinions with biased religious agenda.

 

[tas8831]

Good dodge. So you confirm that 'Science!', is owned by establishment elites, and is not open to anyone

4 decades of study and you still couldn't figger' out that "Eve gene" was NOT a gene!

LOL!

Science doesn't belong to a priesthood, but it does belong to INTELLIGENT, educated, sensible people.

Which is why you are left on the outside looking in.