Archaeopteryx Part 1

[Socrates]

Some people here keep asking for "evidence" as if I have not been presenting evidence all this time.
This ploy of demanding "evidence", as if it has not been already presented is an old ploy used by people on this forum and on other forums.
I have been presenting substantial and incontrovertible evidence for days now.

[SteveF]

Originally Posted by Socrates

I have been presenting substantial and incontrovertible evidence for days now.

You really do live in your own world don't you doug

[ericmurphy]

Sure he has, Steve. "Socrates" saying a fossil was faked is evidence that it was faked.

[damitall]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Some people here keep asking for "evidence" as if I have not been presenting evidence all this time.
This ploy of demanding "evidence", as if it has not been already presented is an old ploy used by people on this forum and on other forums.
I have been presenting substantial and incontrovertible evidence for days now.

You have (for example) posted a picture of a feather fossil. You SAY it is "clearly" the result of a crook making an impression of a modern feather. You can even date it to 1860.

You have shown NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that it is anything other than what it is claimed to be. You have given NO REASON WHATSOEVER for you thinking that it is a modern impression of a modern feather. You have pointed out NO FEATURES that would distinguish the genuine article from a fake. In short, you haven't a clue.

You are, as they say, pissing up a rope.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Some people here keep asking for "evidence" as if I have not been presenting evidence all this time.
This ploy of demanding "evidence", as if it has not been already presented is an old ploy used by people on this forum and on other forums.
I have been presenting substantial and incontrovertible evidence for days now.

You have been presenting pictures from the internet and making extraordinary claims. The only thing you have to backup the claims are more pictures from the internet. You really need to think about what constitutes "evidence" to a bunch of scientific minded individuals like ourselves.

[Socrates]

Since religious sites are now being presented as credible then here are some other issues that I have not even talked about:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...urn-into-birds

Problems with Dinosaurs Evolving into Birds

Warm-blooded vs. cold-blooded

Seemingly forgotten in all the claims that birds are essentially dinosaurs (or at least that they evolved from dinosaurs) is the fact that dinosaurs are reptiles. There are many differences between birds and reptiles, including the fact that (with precious few exceptions) living reptiles are cold-blooded creatures, while birds and mammals are warm-blooded. Indeed, even compared to most mammals, birds have exceptionally high body temperatures resulting from a high metabolic rate.

The difference between cold- and warm-blooded animals isn’t simply in the relative temperature of the blood but rather in their ability to maintain a constant body core temperature. Thus, warm-blooded animals such as birds and mammals have internal physiological mechanisms to maintain an essentially constant body temperature; they are more properly called “endothermic.” In contrast, reptiles have a varying body temperature influenced by their surrounding environment and are called “ectothermic.” An ectothermic animal can adjust its body temperature behaviorally (e.g., moving between shade and sun), even achieving higher body temperature than a so-called warm-blooded animal, but this is done by outside factors.

In an effort to make the evolution of dinosaurs into birds seem more plausible, some evolutionists have argued that dinosaurs were also endothermic,1 but there is no clear evidence for this.2

One of the lines of evidence for endothermic dinosaurs is based on the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones. Fossil dinosaur bones have been found containing special microscopic structures called osteons (or Haversian systems). Osteons are complex concentric layers of bone surrounding blood vessels in areas where the bone is dense. This arrangement is assumed by some to be unique to endothermic animals and thus evidence that dinosaurs are endothermic, but such is not the case. Larger vertebrates (whether reptiles, birds, or mammals) may also have this type of bone. Even tuna fish have osteonal bone in their vertebral arches.

Another argument for endothermy in dinosaurs is based on the eggs and assumed brood behavior of dinosaurs, but this speculation too has been challenged.3 There is in fact no theropod brooding behavior not known to occur in crocodiles and other cold-blooded living reptiles.

Alan Feduccia, an expert on birds and their evolution, has concluded that “there has never been, nor is there now, any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic.”4 Feduccia says that despite the lack of evidence “many authors have tried to make specimens conform to the hot-blooded theropod dogma.”

“Bird-hipped” vs. “lizard-hipped” dinosaurs

All dinosaurs are divided into two major groups based on the structure of their hips (pelvic bones): the lizard-hipped dinosaurs (saurischians) and the bird-hipped dinosaurs (ornithiscians). The main difference between the two hip structures is that the pubic bone of the bird-hipped dinosaurs is directed toward the rear (as it is in birds) rather than entirely to the front (as it is in mammals and reptiles).

But in most other respects, the bird-hipped dinosaurs, including such huge quadrupedal sauropods as Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus, are even less bird-like than the lizard-hipped, bipedal dinosaurs such as the theropods. This point is rarely emphasized in popular accounts of dinosaur/bird evolution.

The three-fingered hand

One of the main lines of evidence cited by evolutionists for the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs is the three-fingered “hand” found in both birds and theropods. The problem is that recent studies have shown that there is a digital mismatch between birds and theropods.

Most terrestrial vertebrates have an embryological development based on the five-fingered hand. In the case of birds and theropod dinosaurs, two of the five fingers are lost (or greatly reduced) and three are retained during development of the embryo. If birds evolved from theropods, one would expect the same three fingers to be retained in both birds and theropod dinosaurs, but such is not the case. Evidence shows that the fingers retained in theropod dinosaurs are fingers 1, 2, and 3 (the “thumb” is finger 1) while the fingers retained in birds are 2, 3, and 4.5

Avian vs. reptilian lung

One of the most distinctive features of birds is their lungs. Bird lungs are small in size and nearly rigid, but they are, nevertheless, highly efficient to meet the high metabolic needs of flight. Bird respiration involves a unique “flow-through ventilation” into a set of nine interconnecting flexible air sacs sandwiched between muscles and under the skin. The air sacs contain few blood vessels and do not take part in oxygen exchange, but rather function like bellows to move air through the lungs.
An avian lung

The air sacs permit a unidirectional flow of air through the lungs resulting in higher oxygen content than is possible with the bidirectional air flow through the lungs of reptiles and mammals. The air flow moves through the same tubes at different times both into and out of the lungs of reptiles and mammals, and this results in a mixture of oxygen-rich air with oxygen-depleted air (air that has been in the lungs for awhile). The unidirectional flow through bird lungs not only permits more oxygen to diffuse into the blood but also keeps the volume of air in the lungs nearly constant, a requirement for maintaining a level flight path.
A reptillian lung

If theropod dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, one might expect to find evidence of an avian-type lung in such dinosaurs. While fossils generally do not preserve soft tissue such as lungs, a very fine theropod dinosaur fossil (Sinosauropteryx) has been found in which the outline of the visceral cavity has been well preserved. The evidence clearly indicates that this theropod had lung and respiratory mechanics similar to that of a crocodile—not a bird.6 Specifically, there was evidence of a diaphragm-like muscle separating the lung from the liver, much as you see in modern crocodiles (birds lack a diaphragm). These observations suggest that this theropod was similar to an ectothermic reptile, not an endothermic bird.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Entropy

You have been presenting pictures from the internet and making extraordinary claims. The only thing you have to backup the claims are more pictures from the internet. You really need to think about what constitutes "evidence" to a bunch of scientific minded individuals like ourselves.

Nice try.
I have presented a huge amount of written material from sources such as wikipedia, as well as pictures. All the points I have been making have been backed up.
You will have to do better.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Nice try.
I have presented a huge amount of written material from sources such as wikipedia, as well as pictures. All the points I have been making have been backed up.
You will have to do better.

The "points" you have made have been debunked in sources supplied by myself and others.

[davidm]

BREAKING NEWS
Internet Fruitcake Reveals That The Sun ‘Is God’s Giant Wood-Burning Campfire in The Sky”

TALKRATIONAL.ORG (Internet News Service) — A mentally retarded habitué of Internet Message Boards revealed Saturday that the sun was actually a gigantic wood-burning campfire tended by God.

“There is not much doubt that the sun is simply a gigantic wood-burning campfire,” the retard, Socrates, posted at the Talk Rational message board. “But it is not an impersonal object that produces energy by fusing hydrogen into helium, as the materialists claim. That is a fake.”

Socrates explained that the wood for the campfire is collected in The Plenum, and then transferred into the sky via quantum fluctuations produced by a team of “campfire girls” appointed by God. God, he went on to explain, tends the fire, periodically stoking it by applying a flame produced by a Bic lighter the size of Europe.

“This is obvious,” Socrates said.

Pressed for evidence that the sun was actually a gigantic wood-burning campfire rather than an object that produces radiant energy via the well-understood process of nuclear fusion, Socrates said, “People wish to engage me in discussion by these mischaracterizations. It will not work.”

He added, "Nice try. All the points I have been making have been backed up. You will have to do better."


The sun is a giant campfire, it was first realized on Saturday.


It is tended by God.


The Lord keeps the fire burning with a Bic lighter.


The lighter is roughly the size of Europe.

[snorkild]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Take a look at the tail here. Isn't that a lovely impression of a single feather pressed into the material.

I presume you think a modern feather was used in this forgery.

What species of bird did this feather come from?

[TestyCalibrate]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Some people here keep asking for "evidence" as if I have not been presenting evidence all this time.
This ploy of demanding "evidence", as if it has not been already presented is an old ploy used by people on this forum and on other forums.
I have been presenting substantial and incontrovertible evidence for days now.

Have they done this to you at every forum you've ever visited? The cads.

[Martin B]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Some people here keep asking for "evidence" as if I have not been presenting evidence all this time.
This ploy of demanding "evidence", as if it has not been already presented is an old ploy used by people on this forum and on other forums.
I have been presenting substantial and incontrovertible evidence for days now.

Not really. You've been proving to us that you're a fucking crackpot who has no idea what he's talking about. Your first goof was mistaking the tail of Archaeopteryx for a whole feather.

Originally Posted by Socrates

Yes.
And I was noticing this picture:



The famous, single feather

This shows a separate feather.
And yet in the picture in my first post above, the feather is right with the skeleton.
It does not make sense. It leads one to think that it is a re-construction of different things put together.

[emphasis added]

Again, the evidence we see presented here is that you are stupid beyond words.

[SteveF]

Martin, I think you're going to have to pop out of your office and tell everyone at work that Archaeopteryx is a fake. Good luck.

[sanshou]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Some people here keep asking for "evidence" as if I have not been presenting evidence all this time.
This ploy of demanding "evidence", as if it has not been already presented is an old ploy used by people on this forum and on other forums.
I have been presenting substantial and incontrovertible evidence for days now.

you might as well give up. it's becoming increasingly obvious that the strategy of evolutionists is not to win the argument, but just to keep the illusion that there is an argument going. that in itself is a victory.

i don't think anyone here is prepared to have a real debate though.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Entropy

The "points" you have made have been debunked in sources supplied by myself and others.

This is another ploy often used - to say that something has been "debunked".
All this means is that someone has posted something disagreeing with the point made. It is only in the posters eyes that this constitutes "debunking".

[Martin B]

Originally Posted by SteveF

Martin, I think you're going to have to pop out of your office and tell everyone at work that Archaeopteryx is a fake. Good luck.

Yes, indeed. I'm going to stand in front of the display case where it sits and pamphelet all the visitors. The pamphelets will contain excerpts of the trenchant thesis Doug has presented here.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by snorkild

I presume you think a modern feather was used in this forgery.

What species of bird did this feather come from?

Great question.
Can you do a little homework for us on this?
We already know that it is a "modern feather". Everyone acknowledges that.
What modern feather from around 1860 could have been used?

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by sanshou

you might as well give up. it's becoming increasingly obvious that the strategy of evolutionists is not to win the argument, but just to keep the illusion that there is an argument going. that in itself is a victory.

i don't think anyone here is prepared to have a real debate though.

Very true.
I have been researching the actual origin of modern birds. It is quite fascinating. Of course it has nothing to do with the archaeopteryx fake. Archaeopteryx is not considered an ancestor to modern birds anyway.

[damitall]

Originally Posted by sanshou

you might as well give up. it's becoming increasingly obvious that the strategy of evolutionists is not to win the argument, but just to keep the illusion that there is an argument going. that in itself is a victory.

i don't think anyone here is prepared to have a real debate though.

I for one am perfectly prepared to debate the feather fossil ssue - if only thefool would present us with something TO debate - like his reasons for thinking it a fake, or for thinking it a modern impression.

At the moment it's just an expression of wishful thinking on his part. The converstion goes ike this

It's a fake!

Why is it a fake?

Because I say so!

Why do you say so? What features make you think it's a fake?

It's a fake!

And so on, ad nauseam/infinitum

[zagloba]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Please tell us why you say that.
Would an actual feather not look like that?

Because feathers, like bananas, have no bones.

[Monad]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Some people here keep asking for "evidence" as if I have not been presenting evidence all this time.
This ploy of demanding "evidence", as if it has not been already presented is an old ploy used by people on this forum and on other forums.
I have been presenting substantial and incontrovertible evidence for days now.

Try again - we're onto this fraud. Yes you - you're the faker here. You have presented, as usual, nothing. In fact you have only just announced that you have decided it was faked by having feathers pressed against something (whether you mean cement of something you haven't even stated that). You have not presented a single thing to back up that claim - no evidence, not even a description of what was involved. You've speculated about whether the feathers were drawn or etched on previous to that but presented no actual evidence to support that either.

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by damitall

FIFY, zagloba.

Can you see why it OBVIOUSLY isn't, Socrates?

CAn anyone help Socrates?

Nope,
There's no Hope
For the Dope.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Martin B

Not really. You've been proving to us that you're a fucking crackpot who has no idea what he's talking about. Your first goof was mistaking the tail of Archaeopteryx for a whole feather.

[emphasis added]

Again, the evidence we see presented here is that you are stupid beyond words.

It is depressing to see how rational people resort to swearing and ridicule when their faith in evolution is challenged.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by zagloba

Because feathers, like bananas, have no bones.

What bones are you talking about?

[Socrates]

By the way, the tail in the archaeopteryx specimen is a whole single feather. A whole single feather that was impressed into the material.
Is there someone who does not understand what I am saying?