randman

<a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevoletter.asp" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevoletter.asp</a>

Daggah

Ironic...you don't trust esteemed publications like National Geographic and you post links to known dishonest organizations like TrueOrigins, ICR, and AiG...what's next, are you going to link to Hovind's arguments, troll?

MrDarwin

I found this little disclaimer interesting:

In fact, his views are very much not in agreement with the views otherwise published at that site. Storrs Olsen is an evolutionary biologist, who simply believes that birds evolved from a group of extinct reptiles other than dinosaurs.

As I've stated before, biologists don't disagree on the reality of evolution, they disagree on its details. Using the same reasoning that creationists like to use to "disprove" evolution, Christianity must be a lie, since so many Christian sects disagree on so many of its details.

randman

So when ya'll state it is a FACT birds evolved from dinosaurs, it is wrong for a creationist or a critic to contest that, but it is OK for another evolutionist to argue about "the details."
Did I get that right?
Did it ever occur to you that the idea of quoting another evolutionist to show you guys that this suppossed fact is not necessarily true is deliberate?
Gee, ever thought of that?
You guys look just plain stupid here.
Of course the Smithsonian guy is an evolutionist. Does that make our use of him any less viable.
I suppose if I quoted a creationist scientist, you would find him more credible? (sarcasm here for the dimwitted)
If you want to talk about the substance, fine, but you show your weakness by pointing out the guy is not a creationist.
If I have to explain to you how utterly stupid your post is, something is wrong with your mind.
But I run into this all the time.
Let's say we are arguing about the Bible, and you quote a biblical scholar who beleives it is the word of God too to make a point. Would it be right for me to dodge the point made by stating, well, he agrees with me that the Bible is the word of God?
Is that what you are saying?

trunks2k

We're the ones looking like idiots? I cannot see the logic going through your head in your last statment. And if I could I bet it would be like that episode of Pinky and the Brain where everything is shown from Pinky's point of view. This analogy has no relevence to what we are talking about.

This is what we are saying and fail to understand: The article you gave us does not disprove evolution, it is skepticle of where birds came from (I didn't read the article, but that is the accusation that other posters made and Randman replied to so I'm working off of that). Almost anyone who has a a doctorate in a physical science (biology, geology, paleontology (spelled wrong) etc...) will agree that evolution takes place. We have large amounts of evidence for it taking place, we can witness it in the world around us. What they do not all agree on is EXACTLY HOW it takes place. One evolutionary biologist will say "birds evolved from dinosaurs" while another one will say "no, I disagree. I think birds evolved from some other sort of reptile." (notice how they both agree that birds evoloved from some type of reptile) That argument does not cast a doubt on whether or not evolution takes place, but rather it casts skeptisism on what birds evolved from.

edited to add:

And it is perfectly fine for a creationist to contest the idea of birds evolving from dinosaurs if they have the proper arguments. What we contest is them saying "Birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, therefore evolution did not take place." We also protest them stating that it is an absolute fact that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, because it is definatly a subject of great debate.

And in the context of this thread, this link has been recieved by posters as a direct attack on the idea of evolution as a whole (based on your previous posts), rather than a discussion of what birds evolved from. So other posters attacked the idea that the given article is a valid argument against evolution as a whole. If you would like a discussion on whether or not the writer of this article has a valid point of saying that birds evolved from some other sort of reptile, simple ask for that discussion.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: trunks2k ]</p>

Late_Cretaceous

Sadly, archeoraptor will rank right up there with Nebraska man and Piltdown man for decades to come with creationists who seem to think that such incidents somehow disprove evolutionary theory. If a Van Gough in a museum were to be proved as a fake would that make all Van Goughs fake?

MrDarwin

I suppose somebody here may have claimed "it is a FACT birds evolved from dinosaurs," but honestly, I can't remember anybody doing so. I recall lots of talk about theory, and evidence, but not fact. Please refresh my memory, preferably with a direct quote and a link.

S2Focus

Of course, what creationists *won't* say is that National Geographic "jumped the gun" and published the Archeoraptor claims even though both Science and Nature reviewed and then refused to publish a paper about Archaeoraptor .

(For the benefit of clueless types like randman, Science and Nature are two professional peer-reviewed scientific journals, unlike National Geographic, which is a popular magazine).

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: S2Focus ]</p>

phlebas

randman,

Until you either answer the pending responses waiting for you in other threads, or shout "uncle," any new threads you start in this forum will be moved to Rants, Raves, and Preaching.

Everyone here is happy to interact with those who disagree or who come here wanting to ask questions. No one here is interested in a belligerent troll who doesn't understand common rules of conduct.

Come back when you can handle it.