The Reptile-Bird Theory. Real or Fake?

[Jose Fly]

So wait a minute....a guy just tells you his only interest in evolution is "trying to disprove it", and people are still trying to get him to agree to aspects of it?

Er....um.....hmmmm..........

 

[painted wolf]

If he is willing to discuss the evidence honestly then why not?
It's the best way to learn. (on both sides)

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

So after having been presented with data that he initially claimed doesn't exist, a guy responds with "i am trying to dissprove evolution" rather than any mention at all of the data people went through the effort of providing him, and to you that = "He'll discuss the subject honestly"?

And on another thread the same guy repeats fundamental errors that have been pointed out to him countless times over a period of months (Big Bang, abiogenesis), and to you that's an opportunity for him to learn?

Either you're ridiculously optimistic or very bored....or maybe some of both?

 

[painted wolf]

Who says he's the only one who can learn from this?

I don't expect to win him over... I want a civil discussion of the subject.

I'm sick of people on either side pretending to be so much better than the other side... I'm sick of atheists insulting the intelligence of the faithful as much as I'm sick of the faithful assuming that you need to be an atheist to support evolution.

I want both sides to grow up and start trying to respect one another...

If I'm going to try to teach people about evolution and what it is and is not, then I need to start somewhere don't I?
This is as good a place as any... and I'm not about to start trying to teach people by insulting them right off and telling them they are blinded by faith and/or ignorant/stupid.

That only makes the attacker look ignorant. There are a lot of reasons to have problems with evolution (I don't agree with them, but you have to try to understand them to address them).

So I suggest that everyone on both sides has something to learn from a reasoned discussion on the issue of evolution/creation.

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

Who says he's the only one who can learn from this?

I don't expect to win him over... I want a civil discussion of the subject.

I'm sick of people on either side pretending to be so much better than the other side... I'm sick of atheists insulting the intelligence of the faithful as much as I'm sick of the faithful assuming that you need to be an atheist to support evolution.

I want both sides to grow up and start trying to respect one another...

If I'm going to try to teach people about evolution and what it is and is not, then I need to start somewhere don't I?
This is as good a place as any... and I'm not about to start trying to teach people by insulting them right off and telling them they are blinded by faith and/or ignorant/stupid.

That only makes the attacker look ignorant. There are a lot of reasons to have problems with evolution (I don't agree with them, but you have to try to understand them to address them).

So I suggest that everyone on both sides has something to learn from a reasoned discussion on the issue of evolution/creation.

wa:do

Well said PW. The point isn’t even to convince him that evolution is true, it is to help him to understand evolution. And as long as he is listening, even a little bit, then I applaud your efforts. And if eselam decides to reject the theory of evolution despite the evidence then that is his decision, but at least he will know that he is rejecting it despite the evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

Who says he's the only one who can learn from this?

No one, as far as I can tell.

I'm sick of atheists insulting the intelligence of the faithful

I don't think I've seen anyone "insult the intelligence of the faithful" as a whole. I have seen specific people have their intelligence insulted, but in some cases I think it was perfectly warranted. You have to admit, we've had a rash of rather ignorant creationists here lately. And for whatever reason, they seem to be quite proud of their ignorance.

I've said it before: If you don't like being called stupid, then stop saying stupid things. (EDIT: Not you PW...just a general cliche)

I want both sides to grow up and start trying to respect one another

Both sides of what? The evolution debate? Atheism and theism?

If I'm going to try to teach people about evolution and what it is and is not, then I need to start somewhere don't I?

I'd say the place to start is finding out whether the person you're trying teach is willing to be taught. IMO, someone who says "I'm only trying to disprove evolution" does not fall into the "willing to be taught" category.

I'm not about to start trying to teach people by insulting them right off and telling them they are blinded by faith and/or ignorant/stupid.

Agreed. However, any discussion with Eselam isn't starting right off; he's already established a bit of a history here.

There are a lot of reasons to have problems with evolution (I don't agree with them, but you have to try to understand them to address them)

I think I have a pretty good grasp of several of the reasons people deny evolution. It's been my experience that the folks who take something similar to AIG's position of "If it disagrees with our beliefs, it is wrong by definition" are not the sort of people you try and teach the subject to. As I said before, you may as well try and convince the conservative Muslims here of the virtues of a roasted pig barbecue kegger.

o I suggest that everyone on both sides has something to learn from a reasoned discussion on the issue of evolution/creation

Providing that a "reasoned discussion" is possible.

I know it's difficult to accept that there are some people who, because of their religious beliefs, are completely closed to the idea of evolution and will deny it no matter what, but unfortunately that's often the reality of the situation.

 

[Jose Fly]

And as long as he is listening, even a little bit, then I applaud your efforts. And if eselam decides to reject the theory of evolution despite the evidence then that is his decision, but at least he will know that he is rejecting it despite the evidence.

I'm sorry, but that flies in the face of my years (over a decade) of experience discussing and debating this issue with people from all walks of faith.

You're seriously underestimating the ability of fervent, religiously-motivated denialists to convince themselves that they have "proven that evolution has no evidence".

Never undersestimate the human brain's ability to do whatever it takes to maintain its own comfort level.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Jose,

remember, eselam is not the only one reading this thread. If someone else, who has been fed the Creationist story, but has doubts, comes across this thread, it may open their eyes to the truth.
PW is providing education for everyone, I have learned a lot from her and applaud her tenacity and patience.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose,

remember, eselam is not the only one reading this thread. If someone else, who has been fed the Creationist story, but has doubts, comes across this thread, it may open their eyes to the truth.
PW is providing education for everyone, I have learned a lot from her and applaud her tenacity and patience.

But isn't "providing education for everyone" the point of the Questions About Evolution thread? Surely there are better ways to educate oneself about evolutionary biology than lurking in a debate between PW and fundamentalist Muslims?

I'm not trying to discount PW's contributions and efforts...I guess I'm just pointing out the futility of debating evolution with fundamentalists thinking that they can be taught or are open to an "honest debate".

In a way, this whole thing could be seen as actually working against PW's goal of having people of no faith respect people of faith. As we've seen countless times, the more you present staunch denialists with data the more absurd and ridiculous their responses become. One side result of that is that some folks may come away with an increasingly negative view of "people of faith" (especially when it's faith that's the main driver of the denialism).

 

[painted wolf]

It may be futile here. (I don't know that it is, I tend to think people can grow and adapt to new knowledge)

But it helps me hone my technique, learn patience and hopefully at the very least show that evolution is not for atheists or against God.
Many 'creationists' are average people who have been given misinformation... not the rabid sterotypes that are so easy to poe on the internet.

(honestly I think most of the creationists here are just enjoying driving the atheists into rabid fits, to expose their biases.)

wa:do

 

[Gharib]

So eselam, now that you have been shown several examples of transitional forms between birds and dinosaurs, do you agree that the two groups are closely related?

how can i answer you if i haven't srtudied that yet. thats why i'm asking for links, and if there is nothing wrong in the links then you will hear from me.

but if there is, then i will show you what it is. i'm not going to accept this blindly just because some scientists have found a bird like creature.

 

[Gharib]

So after having been presented with data that he initially claimed doesn't exist, a guy responds with "i am trying to dissprove evolution" rather than any mention at all of the data people went through the effort of providing him, and to you that = "He'll discuss the subject honestly"?

And on another thread the same guy repeats fundamental errors that have been pointed out to him countless times over a period of months (Big Bang, abiogenesis), and to you that's an opportunity for him to learn?

Either you're ridiculously optimistic or very bored....or maybe some of both?

take it easy man, i am looking at the links, be patient. i will only go against it if there is something to go against.

 

[Autodidact]

how can i answer you if i haven't srtudied that yet. thats why i'm asking for links, and if there is nothing wrong in the links then you will hear from me.

but if there is, then i will show you what it is. i'm not going to accept this blindly just because some scientists have found a bird like creature.

This is classic. What you're saying is that you don't know anything about it, and hope to get up to speed by spending a few minutes on the internet, but you're sure when you do you'll be able to show those dumb scientists, thousands of the world's best and brightest who have devoted their lives to studying this, just where they've gone wrong.

Please listen: Not some scientists, all the scientists who've looked. Not a bird-like creature, but several different instances of several bird-like creatures. But I'm sure that you, with no training or education in the matter, will be able to set them straight, as soon as you figure out what the heck they're talking about.

 

[painted wolf]

This is classic. What you're saying is that you don't know anything about it, and hope to get up to speed by spending a few minutes on the internet, but you're sure when you do you'll be able to show those dumb scientists, thousands of the world's best and brightest who have devoted their lives to studying this, just where they've gone wrong.

They asked for evidence... it was given.
If any more questions come up, I'm sure those of us who know about the research will be happy to deal with them.
It takes time to look over evidence and try to absorb it... It needs to be mulled over and given deep thought.
If eselam finds any fault with the evidence I've given so far, I will be happy to address that when the time comes. I'm not perfect and I'm sure that there are aspects of the research I may have missed... or that will need more explanation to clear up.

Please listen: Not some scientists, all the scientists who've looked. Not a bird-like creature, but several different instances of several bird-like creatures. But I'm sure that you, with no training or education in the matter, will be able to set them straight, as soon as you figure out what the heck they're talking about.

I'm sorry to have to point this out to you... but you are looking a little over vehement.

This is an area of active debate... the BAND (birds are not dinosaurs) crowd is still active and while they have yet to produce any good evidence to support their views, they are hardly non-scientists. (many of them are very highly qualified Ornithologists!)

So no... not "all the scientists who've looked" agree. And even among those who do support the dinosaur-bird link, there is healthy debate as to which of these critters are genuinely in the dinosaur-bird linage and which are offshoots, dead ends and which are the results of parallel or convergent evolution.

The ultimate point is... that this is healthy in science. Without debate there can be no growth and no further progress. There are a few instances where the BAND camp has made some valid arguments and these arguments have spurred much of the research into bird origins and that research backs up the dinosaur origin.

So you may want to take care in how you present your argument...

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

They asked for evidence... it was given.
If any more questions come up, I'm sure those of us who know about the research will be happy to deal with them.
It takes time to look over evidence and try to absorb it... It needs to be mulled over and given deep thought.
If eselam finds any fault with the evidence I've given so far, I will be happy to address that when the time comes. I'm not perfect and I'm sure that there are aspects of the research I may have missed... or that will need more explanation to clear up.


I'm sorry to have to point this out to you... but you are looking a little over vehement.

This is an area of active debate... the BAND (birds are not dinosaurs) crowd is still active and while they have yet to produce any good evidence to support their views, they are hardly non-scientists. (many of them are very highly qualified Ornithologists!)

So no... not "all the scientists who've looked" agree. And even among those who do support the dinosaur-bird link, there is healthy debate as to which of these critters are genuinely in the dinosaur-bird linage and which are offshoots, dead ends and which are the results of parallel or convergent evolution.

The ultimate point is... that this is healthy in science. Without debate there can be no growth and no further progress. There are a few instances where the BAND camp has made some valid arguments and these arguments have spurred much of the research into bird origins and that research backs up the dinosaur origin.

So you may want to take care in how you present your argument...

wa:do

I think the precise relationship between birds and therapods is not well-established. I don't think there is any controversy among Biologists about whether they are closely related by evolutionary relationships, which is what eselam is trying to show, as soon as he learns thing one about the issue.

All biologists on both or all sides of the debate agree that ToE is correct and is the tool to use to figure out the precise relationship between birds and therapods. eselam is attempting to launch "ToE is false" from the platform of "birds are not direct descendants of dinosaurs," which is not a valid conclusion. That is, as often happens with creationists, any evidence of healthy scientific debate is treated as an admission that ToE is not a valid theory.

 

[painted wolf]

I think the precise relationship between birds and therapods is not well-established. I don't think there is any controversy among Biologists about whether they are closely related by evolutionary relationships, which is what eselam is trying to show, as soon as he learns thing one about the issue.

And I'm telling you that the BAND camp is genuine, they are scientists and they disagree with the bird-theropod relationship. They promote that birds are descended from an as yet unidentified archosaur group. (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs)
The vast majority of scientists are unconvinced by their arguments... but it does not mean that they don't exist.

All biologists on both or all sides of the debate agree that ToE is correct and is the tool to use to figure out the precise relationship between birds and therapods.

On this you are correct.

eselam is attempting to launch "ToE is false" from the platform of "birds are not direct descendants of dinosaurs," which is not a valid conclusion. That is, as often happens with creationists, any evidence of healthy scientific debate is treated as an admission that ToE is not a valid theory.

Regardless of what eselam's position is... your misrepresentation of the false monolith of thought on dinosaur-bird relations is damaging to the argument for evolution.
When you claim that ALL scientists say _____ you take a great risk.
I realize you likely don't know much about the BAND group and their role in the dinosaur-bird debate... but that is why you need to be extra careful, however well intentioned you are.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

And I'm telling you that the BAND camp is genuine, they are scientists and they disagree with the bird-theropod relationship. They promote that birds are descended from an as yet unidentified archosaur group. (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs)
The vast majority of scientists are unconvinced by their arguments... but it does not mean that they don't exist.

Oh yes, I know that, I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that there is disagreement about whether birds are descended from dinosaurs or whether the divergence happened earlier, but no controversy about whether the two groups are related--right?

On this you are correct.

Regardless of what eselam's position is... your misrepresentation of the false monolith of thought on dinosaur-bird relations is damaging to the argument for evolution.[/quote] Oh no, I don't deny there's controversy. Go back. I have said several times that the exact relationship is not clear, and so forth.
When you claim that ALL scientists say _____ you take a great risk.

I realize you likely don't know much about the BAND group and their role in the dinosaur-bird debate... but that is why you need to be extra careful, however well intentioned you are.

What virtually all biologists agree on is ToE, that's my point. I think it's something like 99+%. Disagreement about details does not change this. Creationists have trouble grasping this. That's the point of this thread for eselam. (stay tuned and watch.)

 

[painted wolf]

Oh yes, I know that, I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that there is disagreement about whether birds are descended from dinosaurs or whether the divergence happened earlier, but no controversy about whether the two groups are related--right?

You are right... but that isn't what you said.

You said that all scientists agreed on the dinosaur-bird link.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

You are right... but that isn't what you said.

You said that all scientists agreed on the dinosaur-bird link.

wa:do

O.K. I'll change it. The overwhelming consensus of biologists agree that there is such a link.

 

[painted wolf]

Much better...
It's important to be precise in such debates....

wa:do