|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/19/2008 7:54:38 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 534
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Of course they bring religious ideas with them into the lab. But they are only allowed to use evidence derived from nature. And so, the supernatural is excluded automatically. Ahh, but what good is science without interpretations of that evidence. That's where personal biases enter the realm of "scientific" endeavor.
Can you give me an example of this?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/19/2008 8:32:29 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3108
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Every hour of my working day I observe evidence related to the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of patients. I must interpret this evidence in order to draw useful conclusions which I may apply to the individual patient in attempt to restore their health. My personal biases have been developed over 30 years of practicing medicine. Apparently, they are superior to the biases of many other physicians, because I am the most successful specialist in my locale. All doctors have the same evidence to observe - it's how we interpret and apply that evidence that makes the difference in our "scientific" endeavors.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/19/2008 2:45:30 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3108
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The reason we're finding so many feathered dinosaurs (including Microraptor) in the Liaoning (if that's spelled right) region of China is becase the animals were buried in very fine-grained volcanic ash, and thus you have more opportunities to preserve impressions of any delicate features on the animal's surface area. This is also the reason why we find trace impressions of scales on reptiles and fur on mammals which are fossilized in the same ash. Well, to stay more on topic, but related to the aforementioned digression, this is your interpretation of the evidence, Raptorman. You (nor any other scientist) were certainly not around umpteen million years ago to verify the circumstances of burial and fossilization. This is an assumption which is flavored by your biases toward therapod evolution. My biases are quite different!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/26/2008 1:26:30 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 534
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Every hour of my working day I observe evidence related to the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of patients. I must interpret this evidence in order to draw useful conclusions which I may apply to the individual patient in attempt to restore their health. My personal biases have been developed over 30 years of practicing medicine. Apparently, they are superior to the biases of many other physicians, because I am the most successful specialist in my locale. All doctors have the same evidence to observe - it's how we interpret and apply that evidence that makes the difference in our "scientific" endeavors.
During diagnosis, are you using evidence OTHER than natural evidence?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/26/2008 11:01:11 AM
|
|
|
Raptorman
Posts: 85
Joined: 9/21/2005
From: Colorado
Status: offline
|
Drmark, I was merely stating a fact. What do my interpretations have to do with the objective fact that impressions of feathers, fur and scales, were preserved by volcanic ash?
_____________________________
"Satan himself trembles when the weakest saint is on his knees."
-Unknown
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."
-Gandalf, "Lord of the Rings"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/26/2008 12:00:00 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 1395
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
God is not going to be judged by men, nor is God going to remove the slightest guilt from a scientist that lies to his fellow man that God doesnt exist because the universe and dinosaurs 'just happened' randomly to evolve-according to the witness of that lab scientist. Actually John, no lab scientist has "witnessed" any example of evolution in the recorded history of mankind. Evolution is nothing more than the faith-based conclusions of secular humanists based on faulty assumptions of naturalism and materialism. Unfortunately, some Christians have been deceived into accepting these misguided conclusions as "scientific facts". The real question, then, is how will God will judge His children who applaud this deception instead of taking Him at His Word. I do not know - nor do I plan to find out!
Wow! Even when I agree with you it's hard to get by the spirit with which the response is couched.
I have solid theological reasons for adhering to the young earth model. But, I am still interested in examining any and all discoveries. While I never doubt that the Word of God is wrong. I cannot afford to be too complacent in my belief that I have the interpretation of the Word entirely correct.
My hobby, protozoology, is one of the reasons that I find anti-ID evolutionism unconvincing. When we extrapolate the number of generations that have been observed in microorganisms to the number of generations of larger animals having been said to have evolved, it only seems logical that we should have seen at least one instance by now.
And, we have the benefit of being able to manipulate the cells with a variety of stimuli that should induce evidence of the capacity for evolutionary mechanisms. It alway results in harm... not good.
< Message edited by TMeeks -- 2/26/2008 12:09:57 PM >
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/26/2008 7:23:08 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3108
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
During diagnosis, are you using evidence OTHER than natural evidence? How would I analyze or even confirm supernatural evidence, BVZ?
quote:
Drmark, I was merely stating a fact. What do my interpretations have to do with the objective fact that impressions of feathers, fur and scales, were preserved by volcanic ash? Ah, but this so-called fact does not include the age of the specimens, the circumstances of their burial, or any direct demonstration of the lineage of these organisms, does it?
quote:
Wow! Even when I agree with you it's hard to get by the spirit with which the response is couched. Wow! How does one acquire the gift of determining the "spirit of a response" written on an electronic forum by someone you've never met? I sure don't have that capability!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/27/2008 9:04:14 AM
|
|
|
Raptorman
Posts: 85
Joined: 9/21/2005
From: Colorado
Status: offline
|
I was never trying to answer any of those questions! I was only contending for the idea that some dinosaurs had feathers, and the volcanic ash was the reason we were finding so many feather impressions in the Liaoning province of China, as opposed to a fossil factory that kept giving evolutionists what they wanted by producing artificial dinosaur/bird links. That's all I was saying.
_____________________________
"Satan himself trembles when the weakest saint is on his knees."
-Unknown
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."
-Gandalf, "Lord of the Rings"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/27/2008 12:58:26 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3108
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Great, I'm glad we're still friends, Raptorman! 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/27/2008 2:35:53 PM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 160
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: online
|
Hi, I know I’m new to this board, but I can never resist a good evolution debate, especially about this topic. Any of you who have posted at Christian Forums might know me as “Aggie” there. I’m a theistic evolutionist, and one of that forum’s specialists about the origin of birds.
I’m glad to see that Raptorman agrees that feathered dinosaurs did exist, unlike some of the more extreme creationists out there. However, this raises a question I have that I’d like to know his answer to.
Most creationists accept that “micro” evolution is something that can and does happen, including the formation of new species. For example, Answers in Genesis recognizes the claim that no new species have ever formed as being false, and has it on their list of arguments that creationists should not use. Since creationists tend to accept that certain especially similar modern animals are related to one another in this manner, such as wolves being related to coyotes, I think it’s reasonable to expect that creationists believe some of these feathered dinosaurs were related to one another also, such as Microraptor being related to Sinornithosaurus.
So here’s the question: if dinosaurs aren’t related to birds, how can we determine which of these animals are related to one another, and which aren’t? Microraptor is about as similar to Archaeopteryx as a wolf is to a coyote, and this isn’t just a superficial similarity like the similarity between a lizard and a rat. You seem fairly knowledgeable about dinosaurs, so I think you’re probably aware of the minute anatomical similarities between those two genera that are found in no animals other than dinosaurs and primitive birds.
I have an essay at Christian Forums describing this issue in more detail, which includes images of animals at several different steps in the transition between dinosaurs and birds, for which it would not have required more than “micro evolution” for each of them to be related to the next. I also asked the question there: if in some cases these animals were related to one another, but in other cases God made it appear exactly as though they were even though they actually weren’t, why would God have gone out of his way to make something appear a way other than the way it actually is? Is it consistent with the Bible to believe that God is deliberately deceiving us in this manner?
So far, no creationists have had much to say about what I posted about this at Christian forums, but hopefully I’ll receive some more interesting replies about it here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/28/2008 1:24:07 AM
|
|
|
Raptorman
Posts: 85
Joined: 9/21/2005
From: Colorado
Status: offline
|
Thanks, Drmark. I hope I didn't sound too caustic.
Agahnim, I thank you for your post. It's certainly thought-provoking, and i have already read through part of your essay (just a minor correction, however: the photo of what is supposed to be Compsognathus longipes is actually Coelophysis bauri. But it's minor  ).
Actually, Archaeopteryx does not seem to be closely related to Mircoraptor. It lacks the bony chevrons crisscrossing each other over the tail vertebrae. Some small characteristics are undoubtedly shared (half-moon wrist bone, sickle-like talon on the hind foot, etc.), but I would say, mainly because of Microraptor's bone "mesh" on the tail, that it's a bit of a stretch to say that comparing Microraptor and Archaeopteryx is like comparing a wolf with a coyote (or a pug, for that matter -- all dogs share the same basic skeletal structure). Besides, bones and trace fossils like the feather imprints don't tell us everything about an animal. Some decidedly non-avian traits may well have been manifested in Microraptor (though, of course, that's mostly an argument from a lack of knowledge. I'm just floating it as an idea).
This of course comes from a Young-Earther's perspective (at least for now -- I am currently a YEC, but I don't put too much stock in it), but essentially I would not think God was being deceptive with feathered dinosaurs at the time they were created any more than He was lying when He created the chameleon (which changes colors to match its surroundings) or the octopus (changes colors and skin texture!). I will be the first to admit that it is not an entirely satisfactory response, but it's what I can think of at the moment. Your question is still an interesting one.
I'll admit that I cannot answer all your arguments, at least for the moment, but I'll get back to you on this. Please be patient with me. I tend to be a slow learner.  This comes not because of a stubbornness in me (I can't stand it when people are deeply entrenched in their ways and won't change, even when the evidence is against their views), but from my desire to ponder things very carefully before I make a decision.
Thank you again. I will be sure to give your words some careful thought.
< Message edited by Raptorman -- 2/28/2008 1:40:09 AM >
_____________________________
"Satan himself trembles when the weakest saint is on his knees."
-Unknown
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."
-Gandalf, "Lord of the Rings"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/28/2008 3:15:17 AM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 160
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
Agahnim, I thank you for your post. It's certainly thought-provoking, and i have already read through part of your essay (just a minor correction, however: the photo of what is supposed to be Compsognathus longipes is actually Coelophysis bauri. But it's minor ).
That’s very strange. Canada’s Memorial University has that fossil listed as Compsognathus, and when I posted that thread I didn’t pay close attention to whether they were making a mistake, but it looks like they might have been. (If you don’t believe me that this is what they listed it as, take a look at the URL of the image—the fossil’s supposed genus is the file name.) During the time since I posted that thread, I’ve already replaced a few of the images due to them going down, so at some point I’ll see if I can find a good image of a well-preserved Compsognathus fossil to use instead.
quote:
Actually, Archaeopteryx does not seem to be closely related to Mircoraptor. It lacks the bony chevrons crisscrossing each other over the tail vertebrae. Some small characteristics are undoubtedly shared (half-moon wrist bone, sickle-like talon on the hind foot, etc.), but I would say, mainly because of Microraptor's bone "mesh" on the tail, that it's a bit of a stretch to say that comparing Microraptor and Archaeopteryx is like comparing a wolf with a coyote (or a pug, for that matter -- all dogs share the same basic skeletal structure). Besides, bones and trace fossils like the feather imprints don't tell us everything about an animal. Some decidedly non-avian traits may well have been manifested in Microraptor (though, of course, that's mostly an argument from a lack of knowledge. I'm just floating it as an idea).
I guess the wolf/coyote analogy might be an overstatement. A better comparison might be the similarity between a cheetah and a lion, since cheetahs have several physical traits to help them run quickly that aren’t found in lions, yet most creationists still seem to agree that all of the big cats are related to one another.
However, I don’t think the presence of this trait in Microraptor and not in Archaeopteryx is a reason why they couldn’t have been related. The bony chevrons in Microraptor’s tail are a predatory adaptation that appears to be specific to dromaeosaurids, since even other deinonychosaurs such as troodontids don’t have it. In fact, I imagine this trait would have served as a disadvantage to a flying animal, since it would have interfered with the tail’s ability to act as a rudder during flight. For these reasons, I don’t think this trait could have been expected to evolve until dromaeosarids were beginning to develop their fast-running lifestyle, after the ancestors of troodontids and birds had already split off from them.
I also think it’s worth noting that some of the traits shared between Microraptor and Archaeopteryx, such as the semilunate carpal and unfused sternal plates, are found in no animals other than theropods and primitive birds. Archaeopteryx also has several other traits that are associated with dinosaurs and no other group of animals, some of which are described in the Talk.Origins article linked to in my essay. One other dinosaurian trait of Archaeopteryx not mentioned there is that its shoulder joint doesn’t have a triosseal canal, which is something that modern birds need in order to raise their wings above their body when taking off from the ground. Archaeopteryx has a theropod-like shoulder structure instead, which would have given it some trouble if it ever tried to flee from a predator by taking flight.
Even though it’s possible that there were some other traits found in Microraptor and Archaeopteryx that made them more different than can be determined based on anatomy, all of the evidence that’s available seems to suggest a relationship between them, at least if you believe there’s a relationship between lions and cheetahs. And if God designed these animals so that the only aspects of them which could be preserved in fossils suggested they were related, and whatever traits suggested otherwise would never be discovered, that’s still somewhat deceptive.
quote:
This of course comes from a Young-Earther's perspective (at least for now -- I am currently a YEC, but I don't put too much stock in it), but essentially I would not think God was being deceptive with feathered dinosaurs at the time they were created any more than He was lying when He created the chameleon (which changes colors to match its surroundings) or the octopus (changes colors and skin texture!). I will be the first to admit that it is not an entirely satisfactory response, but it's what I can think of at the moment. Your question is still an interesting one.
I'll admit that I cannot answer all your arguments, at least for the moment, but I'll get back to you on this. Please be patient with me. I tend to be a slow learner. This comes not because of a stubbornness in me (I can't stand it when people are deeply entrenched in their ways and won't change, even when the evidence is against their views), but from my desire to ponder things very carefully before I make a decision.
Thank you again. I will be sure to give your words some careful thought.
Feel free to take your time with it. It’s been a long time since I’ve had the opportunity to debate with a creationist who’s as reasonable and knowledgeable as you, especially about the topic of paleontology that I find most interesting. It’s a very refreshing change, after months of debating with creationists who copy and paste articles they don’t understand from other websites, and then ignore whatever I have to say in refutation.
I look forward to seeing whatever else you have to say about this.
< Message edited by Agahnim -- 2/28/2008 4:27:54 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/28/2008 3:47:20 AM
|
|
|
scutus
Posts: 639
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
Actually, Archaeopteryx does not seem to be closely related to Mircoraptor. It lacks the bony chevrons crisscrossing each other over the tail vertebrae. Archaeopteryx belongs to Avialae, not far removed from the Dromaeosauridae in which Microraptor gui belongs to, but there are important differences there which you point out. Archaeopteryx probably isn't as closely related to Microraptor as a coyote is to a wolf, but they're still very similar, which is the point that I think Aggie was trying to make here.
What's more interesting to me is the fact that Microraptor gui shares (pg 9)very similar chevron bones in the tail to Deinonychus, another member of the same family group:
quote:
The entire articulated tail, which is
wrapped in the extremely long, bony, rodlike
extensions of the prezygapophyses and chevrons
typical of dromaeosaurids, is present in
CAGS 20-8-001;
I don't really know why the difference is there between Archaeopteryx and Microraptor, or indeed the rest of Dromaeosauridae. I'm pretty sure it's a physical adaptation to Archaeopteryx's style of flying, but you'll have to ask a expert on that.
[edit] woops, looks like the expert has arrived and posted before me. Please ignore. 
< Message edited by scutus -- 2/28/2008 3:53:56 AM >
_____________________________
"Take your son."
"I have two sons."
"Your only son."
"Each of them is the only son of his mother."
"The one whom you love."
"I love them both."
"Isaac."
-God to Abraham, according to a Jewish midrash.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/28/2008 10:14:15 AM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 160
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: online
|
I’m sorry if I’m overwhelming you with too much information, Raptorman, but there’s one particular line of evidence related to this that I’ve always found so striking that I think I ought to mention it. Based on the theory of evolution, paleontologists were able to predict and illustrate several of the discoveries we’ve been discussing here before they were made. This illustration is from Gregory Paul’s 1988 book Predatory Dinosaurs of the World:
[image]http://www.captainoccam.com/images/GSP-feathers.gif[/image]
I’ve pointed out the place where Paul wrote the year he created this illustration, next to his signature. The first feathered dinosaur to be discovered, Sinosauropteryx prima, was found in 1996. Not only was Greg Paul able to predict the existence of feathered theropods eight years before they were discovered; he even predicted the presence of the long fringes or “proto-wings” that have been found on the arms of Sinornithosaurus and Microraptor.
I consider this one even more striking:
[image]http://www.captainoccam.com/images/Tetrapteryx.gif[/image]
William Beebe was an American Naturalist who conducted a series of studies on bird embryos, and concluded based on their development that the ancestors of birds would have included an animal with wings on all four of its limbs. An animal that fit Beebe’s description, Microraptor gui, was first discovered in 2003. Even though Beebe didn’t get the shape of the wings exactly right, this illustration is much more accurate than I think most people would have been able to manage when drawing an animal that wouldn’t be discovered for another 88 years.
I’ve never seen an adequate creationist explanation for how the theory of evolution is able to predict discoveries like these before they’re made. It seems like if the theory of evolution were wrong, the only possible explanation of this would be just luck, but if that were the case I’d expect creationism to accurately predict things like this as much or more often than evolution does. And I’ve never seen an example of a uniquely creationist hypothesis predicting the existence of a specific anatomical feature like this before it’s discovered.
One of the arguments I hear most often in favor of Christianity is that a lot of prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled—if prophets in Biblical times were able to accurately predict future events, that suggests the god who they considered to be revealing these things to them actually existed. But I think this argument applies to biology also. If the theory of evolution enables scientists to illustrate animals like these before they’re discovered, doesn’t that suggest evolution is an accurate description of nature for the same reason?
EDIT: it seems the images aren’t showing up. If I can’t figure out how to change this, I guess you’ll need to just copy and paste the URLs. Can anyone tell me what I need to do here if I want to put images in a post? They show up when I use the “post preview” feature, but not in the post itself.
< Message edited by Agahnim -- 2/28/2008 10:37:07 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/29/2008 1:11:40 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
I think that many fossils are fake (though I'm not saying this particular one is or is not).
http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=34&PHPSESSID=8e5310eaa4eae2abe1b4e0f07988c7e4
BTW, AIG does address this
quote:
It certainly seems strange that all these ‘feathered dinosaurs’ come from a single province of China—the same place as the Archaeoraptor hoax came from. Indeed, the holotype (first named specimen) of Microraptor was in fact part of this hoax!4
...
Discover: Why would anyone fake a fossil?
Feduccia: Money. The Chinese fossil trade has become a big business. These fossil forgeries have been sold on the black market for years now, for huge sums of money. Anyone who can produce a good fake stands to profit.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0128feathered.asp
AIG is not saying this is a hoax, they are just encouraging critical thinking (I know, this is a concept that seems difficult for many evolutionists). While Feduccia says that money is the reason for many hoaxes, I think that part of the reason is also the fact that the secular community wants to convince the public (and scientists) that evolution (and especially naturalism) is true. The fact that they are dishonest with regards to brainwashing students with naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) and censoring all critiques and opposing views (ie: creationism and ID) with taxpayer money when science welcomes scrutiny and academic freedom supports their overall dishonesty suggesting that those who are behind prohibiting academic freedom maybe also behind many frauds. After all, if they have enough influence to dishonestly prohibit academic freedom, they probably have the capacity to perpetrate many frauds. If it took them about 40 years to figure out that Piltdown man was an obvious fraud, with their level of critical thinking a more subtle fraud may never be discovered.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Raptorman
The evolutionists are excited about Microraptor because it looks like a small dromaeosaur (or "Raptor" dinosaur), with unmistakable impressions of feathers that so far have given no indications of being hoaxed.
They could have said that there was no indication Archaeoraptor was a hoax before it was known to be a hoax. The same thing goes for Piltdown Man and many of the other hoaxes discovered. I'm not saying this is a hoax, I am merely pointing out that they can claim there is no indication of a hoax until they find out something is.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 2/29/2008 1:52:02 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/29/2008 2:14:40 PM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 160
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: online
|
Since I’m already debating with you in another thread, and I know Raptorman disapproves of the idea that Microraptor is fake, I think it’s best for me to let him address most of what you’ve said about this. I would like to point out a few things about Archaeoraptor, though:
1: It wasn’t scientists attempting to support evolution who created this fake, it was a group of Chinese peasants who probably didn’t even know what evolution was. If they weren’t simply under the impression that the tail section was part of the same animal (which they might have been), the only thing they were trying to do was get more money from the fossil, since more complete fossils tend to sell for more. If they had been trying to support evolution, they would have been better off keeping the two animals Archaeoraptor is made from separate, because both of these animals (Microraptor zhaoianus and Yanornis martini) are considered much more important transitional fossils than Archaeoraptor ever could have been.
2: The only reason this fake became publicly known also isn’t the fault of scientists; it was the fault of National Geographic. In violation of the standard paleontology code of ethics, NG published an article about this fossil as soon as it was discovered, rather than waiting until it was properly studied and described by paleontologists in a peer-reviewed journal. As soon as the fossil was studied by paleontologists, they determined that it contained the remains of two different animals. If National Geographic had waited for the fossil to be described before publishing their article about it, the way they were supposed to do, this problem never would have happened.
_____________________________
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 2/29/2008 7:41:53 PM
|
|
|
scutus
Posts: 639
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
EDIT: it seems the images aren’t showing up. If I can’t figure out how to change this, I guess you’ll need to just copy and paste the URLs. Can anyone tell me what I need to do here if I want to put images in a post? They show up when I use the “post preview” feature, but not in the post itself. You can't do it, which is sort of frustrating.
quote:
It certainly seems strange that all these ‘feathered dinosaurs’ come from a single province of China—the same place as the Archaeoraptor hoax came from. Indeed, the holotype (first named specimen) of Microraptor was in fact part of this hoax!4 That's not true. For example, the Velociraptor with quill bones was found in Mongolia, so too with Shuvuuia and Rahonavis.
Except for the Velociraptor specimen, they were all found before 2003 when the AIG article was written, so perhaps AIG should have researched this issue a little more.
In any case, Lianoning produces exceptional fossils not only of feathered dinosaurs, but birds, frogs, fishes, insects etc because of the nature of the environment back then. It's one of the few places in the world that possesses Lagerstatte deposits. It explains why there's so many exceptional fossils of feathered dinosaurs there, without resorting to the suggestion of a fake-fossil factory duping the whole world.
< Message edited by scutus -- 2/29/2008 8:20:33 PM >
_____________________________
"Take your son."
"I have two sons."
"Your only son."
"Each of them is the only son of his mother."
"The one whom you love."
"I love them both."
"Isaac."
-God to Abraham, according to a Jewish midrash.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 3/4/2008 1:42:23 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 534
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
During diagnosis, are you using evidence OTHER than natural evidence? How would I analyze or even confirm supernatural evidence, BVZ?
So there are only two ways your personal bias can have an effect on your diagnosis.
1) You selectively ignore some of the evidence.
2) You are forced to make a guess, since as a doctor, you have to make a decision NOW to save a life. (for example).
When doing science, you cannot do 1), since then you would not be doing science.
When doing science, you cannot do 2), since then you would not be doing science.
I am not saying that personal bias does NOT come into the lab, all I am saying is that if it has an effect on your results, you are not doing science.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 3/4/2008 1:58:34 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3108
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
So there are only two ways your personal bias can have an effect on your diagnosis.
1) You selectively ignore some of the evidence.
2) You are forced to make a guess, since as a doctor, you have to make a decision NOW to save a life. (for example).
When doing science, you cannot do 1), since then you would not be doing science.
When doing science, you cannot do 2), since then you would not be doing science. You are very naive about "doing science", BVZ! Evolutionists ignore evidence for a young earth regularly and make guesses (called assumptions) when analyzing inferential data. Are they "doing science" in the midst of their personal biases?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 3/5/2008 6:46:23 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 534
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
So there are only two ways your personal bias can have an effect on your diagnosis.
1) You selectively ignore some of the evidence.
2) You are forced to make a guess, since as a doctor, you have to make a decision NOW to save a life. (for example).
When doing science, you cannot do 1), since then you would not be doing science.
When doing science, you cannot do 2), since then you would not be doing science. You are very naive about "doing science", BVZ! Evolutionists ignore evidence for a young earth regularly and make guesses (called assumptions) when analyzing inferential data. Are they "doing science" in the midst of their personal biases?
Can you give me an example of a scientist 'ignoring' evidence for a young earth? Back up your claims please.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 3/6/2008 1:34:35 PM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 160
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: online
|
I do hope you get back to this thread eventually, Raptorman. Your level of knowledge, your honesty, and your willingness to consider viewpoints other than your own all make you a pretty rare kind of creationist, and it’s been at least two years since I’ve had the opportunity to discuss the origin of birds with someone like you. You also seem like someone I’d enjoy interacting with in other contexts, if the information listed in your profile is any indication: I’m an aspiring artist and writer also, and I share your interest in video games, although my personal favorites are the Legend of Zelda series rather than Halo.
Even if you’re thinking of accepting evolution, I don’t think that’s a reason to stop posting here. If anything, I’d say this forum would benefit from more knowledgeable people on the evolution side of the debate.
Is there anyone here who knows Raptorman independently of the forum, who could let him know that he’s being missed here?
_____________________________
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 3/8/2008 7:58:22 PM
|
|
|
Raptorman
Posts: 85
Joined: 9/21/2005
From: Colorado
Status: offline
|
Thanks for the kind words, Agahnim. I deeply appreciate them. You seem like a pretty awesome guy, yourself. You're on deviantArt, too?! Awesome! I'm Tyrannosaur17, if you want to look me up there (I'll be getting more artwork up there, I promise!).
Sorry I took so long. Been a busy (and lazy ) couple of weeks for me.
I just did some research on Archaeopteryx on Wikipedia, and found an interesting bit of info (if it proves correct). There's been a debate about which fingers develop to maturity (those which are manifested in the adult skeleton) during embryonic development in dinosaurs and birds. Birds' fingers develop from digits 2, 3 and 4 (if I remember the order correctly) while the three fingers found in most theropod dinosaurs seem to develop from digits 1, 2 and 3, though it's harder to tell in dinosaurs, since we can't exactly see every stage in embryonic development with a long-extinct animal.
It seems that Archaeopteryx has its digits growing from fingers 1, 2 and 3 (the same as dromaeosaurs and other theropods). That and a couple of other features lead me to revise my opinion and say that Archaeopteryx may well have been a feathered dinosaur and not a bird (if the Young-Earth account is true, that is). It's interesting that AiG, in their determination to not admit any feathered dinos, beats this fact to death about which fingers grow in the two animal groups, but they say Archaeopteryx is clearly a bird and leave this little tidbit out of their writings, at least to my knowledge.
Agahnim, I would like to know if you can present any features indicating Archaeopteryx's state as a true bird. It is indeed an enigmatic animal, and I would love to get to the bottom of this. Really, I'm not that knowledgeable about animal anatomy, but I try to look at the features shared between dinosaurs and birds and point them out.
I have an idea about the similarities in the two animals being explained in a Young-Earth paradigm, but I'll have to post it tomorrow to sufficiently develop it (time constraints, and what have you). Thanks for your time. My response will be finished soon.
< Message edited by Raptorman -- 3/8/2008 8:43:58 PM >
_____________________________
"Satan himself trembles when the weakest saint is on his knees."
-Unknown
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."
-Gandalf, "Lord of the Rings"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks - 3/9/2008 1:34:24 AM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 160
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
Thanks for the kind words, Agahnim. I deeply appreciate them. You seem like a pretty awesome guy, yourself. You're on deviantArt, too?! Awesome! I'm Tyrannosaur17, if you want to look me up there (I'll be getting more artwork up there, I promise!).
Something makes me think I’ve looked at your art there before. Have you commented on any of my or my girlfriend’s submissions in the past? (My girlfriend’s account is http://ferahgo-the-assassin.deviantart.com/ .)
By the way, I hope you aren’t offended by my “Occam’s Razor” comic series. I don’t have anything against the few intelligent and reasonable creationists I’ve interacted with such as you, but as I mentioned before, I’ve found creationists like you to be exceedingly rare. At least 90% of the creationists I’ve known in my life fit the portrayal in my comics.
quote:
I just did some research on Archaeopteryx on Wikipedia, and found an interesting bit of info (if it proves correct). There's been a debate about which fingers develop to maturity (those which are manifested in the adult skeleton) during embryonic development in dinosaurs and birds. Birds' fingers develop from digits 2, 3 and 4 (if I remember the order correctly) while the three fingers found in most theropod dinosaurs seem to develop from digits 1, 2 and 3, though it's harder to tell in dinosaurs, since we can't exactly see every stage in embryonic development with a long-extinct animal.
It seems that Archaeopteryx has its digits growing from fingers 1, 2 and 3 (the same as dromaeosaurs and other theropods). That and a couple of other features lead me to revise my opinion and say that Archaeopteryx may well have been a feathered dinosaur and not a bird (if the Young-Earth account is true, that is). It's interesting that AiG, in their determination to not admit any feathered dinos, beats this fact to death about which fingers grow in the two animal groups, but they say Archaeopteryx is clearly a bird and leave this little tidbit out of their writings, at least to my knowledge.
You’re right that the wings of birds develop from digits 2, 3, and 4, while theropod dinosaurs seem to have lost their outer two digits. (4 and 5.) However, there’s a type of mutation that could have caused the genetic coding for digits 1, 2, and 3 in an animal to become copied to digits 2, 3, and 4, which has been observed causing similar changes in living animals. It’s known as a “frame shift”. One of the most famous examples of a frame shift mutation is the one that gave a bacterium the ability to digest nylon; perhaps you’ve heard of that | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
