Birds didn’t come from dinosaurs, s
Jeffrey Turner
Birds didn’t come from dinosaurs, study suggests
June 10, 2009
Courtesy Oregon State University
and World Science staff
A new discovery about bird breathing abilities indicate birds
probably
didn’t descend from any known dinosaurs, according to researchers at
Oregon State University.
The scientists have been waging a lonely battle challenging the
conventional scientific wisdom that birds descend from
dinosaurs known
as theropods, an evolutionary group that included the famous
Tyrannosaurus Rex.
Birds more likely share a common ancestor with dinosaurs than descend
from them directly, said John Ruben, a zoologist at Oregon State who
participated in the new studies.
“It’s really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and
flight we still didn’t understand a basic aspect of bird
biology,” said
Ruben. The studies are published in The Journal of Morphology, and
were
funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation.
It’s been known for decades that the femur, or thigh bone in birds is
largely fixed in place, unlike that in virtually all other land
animals,
the Oregon State researchers say. What they found, though, is that this
fixed position of bird bones and musculature keeps their lung from
collapsing when the bird inhales.
Warm-blooded birds need about 20 times more oxygen than cold-blooded
reptiles, and have evolved a unique lung structure that allows for a
high rate of gas exchange and high activity level. Their unusual thigh
complex is what helps support the lung and prevent its collapse,
according to researchers.
“This is fundamental to bird physiology,” said Devon Quick, an
zoologist
at the university who completed the work as part of her doctoral
studies. “It’s really strange that no one realized this before. The
position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their
lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for
flight.
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
John Harshman
> http://www.world-science.net/othernews/090610_dinosaur
>
> Birds didn’t come from dinosaurs, study suggests
Study in fact suggests no such thing. Authors of study do suggest that,
but their arguments, such as they are, have little to do with the
substance of the study itself.
BAND enthusiasts now find themselves in a similar position with birds as
creationists long have with hominids: they all agree that birds/humans
aren't dinosaurs/apes, but none of them agree on which fossils are fully
bird/human and which are fully dinosaur/ape. So Ruben is claiming that
dromaeosaurs aren't birds, but Feduccia is claiming equally loudly that
dromaeosaurs aren't dinosaurs. Premise-driven science does this to you;
data-driven science helps avoid such conundra.
John Smith
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:bL2dnYRtnoMA_qPX...@posted.localnet...
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/090610_dinosaur
Birds didn�t come from dinosaurs, study suggests
****The TRUE headline should read "Birds didn't come from dinosaurs" exactly
as the current theory supposed.
Birds no more came from Dinosaurs than man came from apes. ***********
Jeffrey Turner
> Birds no more came from Dinosaurs than man came from apes. ***********
You've got no understanding of vernacular English. The thesis of the
researchers in question is that dinosaurs and birds shared a common
ancestor but there wasn't direct descent. Personally, I haven't
studied the question very closely.
--Jeff
Kermit
> "Jeffrey Turner" <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bL2dnYRtnoMA_qPX...@posted.localnet...http://www.world-science.net/othernews/090610_dinosaur
>
> Birds didn’t come from dinosaurs, study suggests
>
> ****The TRUE headline should read "Birds didn't come from dinosaurs" exactly
> as the current theory supposed.
> Birds no more came from Dinosaurs than man came from apes. ***********
So, they did!
Of course, that isn't what you mean. I assume that by "apes" you mean
something like "primates without tails, except humans". To avoid
confusion,, know that most of the pro-science regulars here use "apes"
to mean lesser and great apes, current and extinct, including all
human species. Sometimes specifically hominidae (not including lesser
apes like gibbons).
Are you a Creationist, then? If so, you seem to reject a god-guided
evolution. So do you accept only minimal evolution (dogs came from
wolves perhaps), or animals in each baramin came from a pair of
generic dog kinds or cat kinds, or some such, or much more evolution
(wolves evolved from single-celled organisms), but humans are a
special case?
Kermit
JTEM
John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> BAND enthusiasts now find themselves in a similar
> position with birds as creationists long have with
> hominids:
Seriously, Harshman, why not just call them Nazis? After
all, you DO disagree with them...
> they all agree that birds/humans aren't dinosaurs/apes,
> but none of them agree on which fossils are fully
> bird/human and which are fully dinosaur/ape.
When everyone agrees it ceases to be science and
is forever after known as dogma.
What gets me is that people like Bakker spewed
abject nonsense for years on end, without hardly
a word in response, but let someone question the
birds-as-dinosaur idea and... well... they're a
creationist.
John Harshman
highly specific comparison between BAND and creationists. If it's
invalid, please point out why.
Nomen Publicus
> What gets me is that people like Bakker spewed
> abject nonsense for years on end, without hardly
> a word in response, but let someone question the
> birds-as-dinosaur idea and... well... they're a
> creationist.
Only if they claim goddidit. There are perfectly respectable
paleontologists who doubt that birds and dinosaurs are linked. But they
back up their doubts with research and published papers.
--
'The Descent of Man' by Darwin is available for free from
Project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page
John Harshman
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What gets me is that people like Bakker spewed
>> abject nonsense for years on end, without hardly
>> a word in response, but let someone question the
>> birds-as-dinosaur idea and... well... they're a
>> creationist.
>
> Only if they claim goddidit. There are perfectly respectable
> paleontologists who doubt that birds and dinosaurs are linked. But they
> back up their doubts with research and published papers.
>
Try reading the context here. I know that takes some effort, because
JTEM deletes it. But nobody is accusing anyone of being a creationist
here. JTEM is accusing me of calling some people creationists. What I
actually did was claim that some of the BAND people use reasoning
reminiscent of creationists.
As for your claim, there are three well-known paleontologists who doubt
that birds and dinosaurs are linked: Storrs Olson, Alan Feduccia, and
Larry Martin. Of these, Feduccia is the only one who has come even close
to backing up his claims, and his publications manage to be mutually
contradictory, even at time self-conradictory, on the subject. While
it's in principle respectable to doubt, there comes a point in our
knowledge where it isn't any more. Flat-earthism is no longer
respectable, if it ever was. Creationism is no longer respectable. BAND
is getting pretty close. (The fourth major name in BAND, John Ruben,
isn't a paleontologist but a physiologist, though he has more
publications claiming to support BAND than any of the folks above, and
in fact is co-author on the study that began this thread; but none of
his work holds up under close examination. Few paleontologists take any
of this seriously.)
Kermit
Poe! Ha!
Nevermind...
Kermit
JTEM
> I notice you didn't address my point.
Hypocrite!
Um, hello? Earth to Harshman -- come in, Harshman!
You didn't address MY point, which was your use of
hyperbole.
> I made a highly specific comparison between BAND
> and creationists.
Please. You belittle yourself. It was hyperbole. You're
not *Seriously* going to claim that you couldn't have
made a "point," as you call it, without the comparison
to creationists?
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> I notice you didn't address my point.
>
> Hypocrite!
>
> Um, hello? Earth to Harshman -- come in, Harshman!
>
> You didn't address MY point, which was your use of
> hyperbole.
Sorry. It's hard to figure out what your point is sometimes. What
hyperbole? Why was it hyperbole?
>> I made a highly specific comparison between BAND
>> and creationists.
>
> Please. You belittle yourself. It was hyperbole. You're
> not *Seriously* going to claim that you couldn't have
> made a "point," as you call it, without the comparison
> to creationists?
Since that in fact was my point, no.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Try reading the context here. I know that takes
> some effort, because JTEM deletes it. But
> nobody is accusing anyone of being a creationist
> here.
No, you're just *Comparing* them to Nazis...errrr...
Creationists.
It's hyperbole.
Martin Andersen
resemblances between the two, but I can't see the relevance.
John Harshman
aspects of their ideas resemble those of creationists. And they do. I
provided a direct comparison. Perhaps it would be good to restore just
what we're arguing about:
"BAND enthusiasts now find themselves in a similar position with birds
as creationists long have with hominids: they all agree that
birds/humans aren't dinosaurs/apes, but none of them agree on which
fossils are fully bird/human and which are fully dinosaur/ape. So Ruben
is claiming that dromaeosaurs aren't birds, but Feduccia is claiming
equally loudly that dromaeosaurs aren't dinosaurs. Premise-driven
science does this to you; data-driven science helps avoid such conundra."
What exactly do you find in that paragraph to object to?
JTEM
Nomen Publicus <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What gets me is that people like Bakker spewed
> > abject nonsense for years on end, without hardly
> > a word in response, but let someone question the
> > birds-as-dinosaur idea and... well... they're a
> > creationist.
>
> Only if they claim goddidit.
Um, not quite. They DO NOT claim "goddidit," and
Harshman not only compared them to creationists,
he stands by that hyperbole.
> There are perfectly respectable paleontologists
> who doubt that birds and dinosaurs are linked.
Not according to one or more people you're
familiar with.
Suzanne
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:nfqdnclz_52...@giganews.com...
> JTEM wrote:
>> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I notice you didn't address my point.
>>
>> Hypocrite!
>>
>> Um, hello? Earth to Harshman -- come in, Harshman!
>>
>> You didn't address MY point, which was your use of
>> hyperbole.
>
> Sorry. It's hard to figure out what your point is sometimes. What
> hyperbole? Why was it hyperbole?
>
won't stay on the table, and instead jumps down
onto the floor and runs around like crazy, spilling
it's contents everywhere. Changing which syllable
takes the accent, just makes it sound more elegant.
>
Suzanne
JTEM
Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > No, you're just *Comparing* them to Nazis...errrr...
> > Creationists.
>
> > It's hyperbole.
>
> Eh... all I see is you comparing creationism to Nazism.
Then, here, let me help you with those glasses:
: BAND enthusiasts now find themselves in a similar
: position with birds as creationists long have with
: hominids
--Harshman
That's what I was responding to. Hyperbole.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Why? I'm not saying they're creationists.
As far as fallacious arguments go, it would fall under
Spurious Similarity/Bad Analogy.
I mean, besides it being hyperbole.
John Harshman
is it a bad analogy? Why is it hyperbole?
Kent Paul Dolan
> --Harshman
That is in no sense "hyperbole", and you are turning
remarkably unpleasant recently. Are you having some
kind of severe personality problems?
xanthian.
Richard Harter
You're making a problematic analogy between "BAND enthusiasts" and
creationists and their positions. A good analogy implies that
things that resemble each other in some respect resemble each other
in other related respects. In other words good analogies point to
similarities that are structural and organic; faulty analogies
point to similiarities that are superficial and accidental.
The "similarity of position" is superficial. Whenever you have a
situtation where there are several possible alternatives with some
room for disagreement there will be different people taking
different positions. If alternatives A, B, and C are on the table
with proponents for each view, it is a rhetorical trick for the 'A'
people to lump the 'B' and 'C' people as anti 'A' people and then
accuse them of disagreeing amongst themselves.
Moreover drawing an analogy to creationists was not germane to your
central point. That is, you could just as well said:
"BAND enthusiasts all agree that birds aren't dinosaurs, but none
of them agree on which fossils are fully bird and which are fully
dinosaur. So Ruben is claiming that dromaeosaurs aren't birds,
but Feduccia is claiming equally loudly that dromaeosaurs aren't
dinosaurs. Premise-driven science does this to you; data-driven
science helps avoid such conundra."
So what purpose does bringing in creationists serve? Very simply,
without making an explicit charge, it implicitly suggests that the
science of the "BAND enthusiasts" is like the "science" of the
creationists.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
If I do not see as far as others, it is because
I stand in the footprints of giants.
JTEM
> That is in no sense "hyperbole",
In talk.origins of all places? Please. That's not funny.
....unless you want to argue that he genuinely
couldn't find flaw in the Birds are not Dinosaur
position WITHOUT comparing them to creationists.
If that's not what you're arguing, then, given the
position of creationists here, you'd have to be
pathetic to try and say that it wasn't hyperbole.
This is a group where, more so than just about any
other group, creationists are looked down on. That
alone well qualifies his comments as
Spurious Similarity/Bad Analogy. As for the
charge of hyperbole...
Then again, maybe you're right and I am giving
Harshman too much credit. Maybe he really has
no other criticism to offer, no other flaw that he
can find in BAND apart from his view that they
compare to creationists....
In which case, yeah, it ain't hyperbole.
John Harshman
On this we disagree. It's not the mere fact of disagreement that makes
the similarity. It's the reasons for disagreement. Consider Alan
Feduccia. For many years he claimed that birds were not related to
dromaeosaurs for various reasons. Among them was the "fact" that the
dromaeosaur semilunate carpal was obviously not homologous to a similar
feature in birds. When feathered dromaeosaurs were first discovered, he
claimed that the feathers obviously weren't really feathers. Now he has
reversed his position, agrees that the carpals and feathers are
homologous, but now thinks that dromaeosaurs aren't dinosaurs. This is
one reason I claim that for BAND, the premise is paramount, and data are
interpreted to fit, not the other way around.
And disagreements among BANDits are similar to disagreements among
creationists for exactly this reason. There is in fact no clear dividing
line between apes and humans, or between birds and dinosaurs. The
decision to make such a line is arbitrary, and this is exactly why no
two proponents can agree on where it lies.
> Moreover drawing an analogy to creationists was not germane to your
> central point. That is, you could just as well said:
>
> "BAND enthusiasts all agree that birds aren't dinosaurs, but none
> of them agree on which fossils are fully bird and which are fully
> dinosaur. So Ruben is claiming that dromaeosaurs aren't birds,
> but Feduccia is claiming equally loudly that dromaeosaurs aren't
> dinosaurs. Premise-driven science does this to you; data-driven
> science helps avoid such conundra."
>
> So what purpose does bringing in creationists serve? Very simply,
> without making an explicit charge, it implicitly suggests that the
> science of the "BAND enthusiasts" is like the "science" of the
> creationists.
Well, I hope that's what it suggests. That was my point. In certain
important respects, it is, the most important respect being that
evidence is reinterpreted as needed to maintain the premise. I'm not the
first to make this comparison. See Prum, R. O. 2003. Are current
critiques of the theropod origin of birds science? Rebuttal to Feduccia
(2002). Auk 120:550-561.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Why? I'm not saying they're creationists.
>
> > As far as fallacious arguments go, it would fall under
> > Spurious Similarity/Bad Analogy.
>
> > I mean, besides it being hyperbole.
>
> I would be interested in a justification for either of these claims.
I rather doubt that, considering how it's self evident.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
>>> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Why? I'm not saying they're creationists.
>>> As far as fallacious arguments go, it would fall under
>>> Spurious Similarity/Bad Analogy.
>>> I mean, besides it being hyperbole.
>> I would be interested in a justification for either of these claims.
>
> I rather doubt that, considering how it's self evident.
>
It seems to me that anything self-evident should be easy to explain. Why
don't you explain?
William Morse
While I understand your point, I tend to agree with Richard Harter on
this one. The problem with the creationist comparison is that
creationists completely reject scientific thinking, whereas the BAND
proponents don't. Your point seems to be that the BAND proponents have
let their faith in their hypothesis blind them to the scientific
arguments. This blindness is common in science, since scientists are
human and humans (including atheists) base most of their beliefs on
faith. The problem is that bringing in the loaded term "creationist" in
itself affects the debate, even if the intent is intellectually
justified. I ran into a similar situation myself in a recent discussion
on the Gazda situation. Your analogy may have some merit. but it clearly
could have been better worded.
Yours,
Bill Morse
John Harshman
So? All analogies break down in some respects. If they didn't they would
be identities, not analogies.
> Your point seems to be that the BAND proponents have
> let their faith in their hypothesis blind them to the scientific
> arguments. This blindness is common in science, since scientists are
> human and humans (including atheists) base most of their beliefs on
> faith.
I beg your pardon? I agree that various other scientists have become
irrationally attached to their favorite hypotheses. But BANDits have
done so to a degree that's rare. Quantity has a quality all its own. But
that's not the central feature of the analogy. As I hope I have
explained several times already, it's the inability of proponents to
make a consistent dividing line between supposedly separate groups, for
the reason that the groups aren't actually separate.
> The problem is that bringing in the loaded term "creationist" in
> itself affects the debate, even if the intent is intellectually
> justified. I ran into a similar situation myself in a recent discussion
> on the Gazda situation. Your analogy may have some merit. but it clearly
> could have been better worded.
In what way?
The analogy between BANDits' view of birds/dinosaurs and creationists'
view of humans/apes has several points of similarity I didn't mention,
too. For example, one popular BAND trope (mentioned in the press
release) is the idea of a temporal gap: according to the BAND story, the
oldest bird fossils are much older than their presumed theropod
ancestors. This is logically quite similar to "if humans came from
monkeys, why are there still monkeys?".
William Morse
I actually don't disagree with you in much of what you say, but since
there aren't any creationists currently worth arguing with I might as
well argue with you :-)
>> Your point seems to be that the BAND proponents have let their faith in
>> their hypothesis blind them to the scientific arguments. This blindness
>> is common in science, since scientists are human and humans (including
>> atheists) base most of their beliefs on faith.
>
> I beg your pardon?
All humans are irrational. All scientists are human. I think you can
figure out the conclusion, or perhaps you are arguing the premises?
I agree that various other scientists have become
> irrationally attached to their favorite hypotheses. But BANDits have
> done so to a degree that's rare. Quantity has a quality all its own. But
> that's not the central feature of the analogy. As I hope I have
> explained several times already, it's the inability of proponents to
> make a consistent dividing line between supposedly separate groups, for
> the reason that the groups aren't actually separate.
I would disagree as to the rarity of the BANDits attachment. Yes you have
explained the basis of your analogy, and I don't think either I or
Richard Harter failed to understand that point. We were both simply
objecting to the comparison to a creationist - who doesn't believe in
science - vs. coming up with a comparison to a scientist who refused to
let go of a pet theory, e.g. Agassiz.
>> The problem is that bringing in the loaded term "creationist" in itself
>> affects the debate, even if the intent is intellectually justified. I
>> ran into a similar situation myself in a recent discussion on the Gazda
>> situation. Your analogy may have some merit. but it clearly could have
>> been better worded.
>
> In what way?
>
> The analogy between BANDits' view of birds/dinosaurs and creationists'
> view of humans/apes has several points of similarity I didn't mention,
> too. For example, one popular BAND trope (mentioned in the press
> release) is the idea of a temporal gap: according to the BAND story, the
> oldest bird fossils are much older than their presumed theropod
> ancestors. This is logically quite similar to "if humans came from
> monkeys, why are there still monkeys?".
Well,actually, as far as I can see, no it isn't. It would be logically
similar to an argument that hominid fossils predate the ape-monkey split,
therefore humans are monkeys but not apes. And this argument has not been
made by anyone to the best of my knowledge.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Suzanne
"Martin Andersen" <d...@ikke.nu> wrote in message
news:4a40f898$0$48233$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
same thing as being a Nazi. It's like comparing a rose
petal to an iron foundry.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Richard Harter" <c...@tiac.net> wrote in message
news:4a424bc4...@text.giganews.com...
serve?" It was not relevant to what had been discussed,
but it's a way of lashing out against something bugging
a person that they ordinarily would not be bothered with,
if all people present were not believers in God. However,
his point about how some scientists don't agree with
others on the category in which they place dinosaurs and
birds in the taxa, is a correct observation to the current
trend. To me that incite is worth it's weight in gold
because it's true that all people on one side of an issue
do not necessarily agree with each other in all things.
In other words it's a little more complicated as to
what someone thinks and too much so to classify them
into one box.
>
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
"William Morse" <wdNOSP...@verizonOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:UtB0m.1020$9l4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
object to scientific thinking because we live at the level where
we need to go by evidence when it comes to things at the
research level. For example, I believe in the Lord as the
Creator, but I woiuld not want a doctor to say "I am
going to operate on you blindly by faith." I believe that God
wants doctors to learn things in their field by evidence. Both
faith and evidence are useful.
>
Let me put it a clearer way. You don't think about how
electricity works when you turn on a light switch. You
already know that it works and so by faith, you know
that the light will (hopefully!) come on if you throw the
light switch on,.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f8fb912-59e8-45d9...@s12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
came before birds or whether birds came from
dinosaurs. Seems that they believed dinosaurs came
first, but now they have found birds that preceeded
dinosaurs.
>
Suzanne
>
Augray
wrote in <mUX0m.2043$j84....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com> :
>
>"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8f8fb912-59e8-45d9...@s12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Nomen Publicus <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > What gets me is that people like Bakker spewed
>>> > abject nonsense for years on end, without hardly
>>> > a word in response, but let someone question the
>>> > birds-as-dinosaur idea and... well... they're a
>>> > creationist.
>>>
>>> Only if they claim goddidit.
>>
>> Um, not quite. They DO NOT claim "goddidit," and
>> Harshman not only compared them to creationists,
>> he stands by that hyperbole.
>>
>>> There are perfectly respectable paleontologists
>>> who doubt that birds and dinosaurs are linked.
>>
>> Not according to one or more people you're
>> familiar with.
>>
>No, now they are sparring over whether dinosaurs
>came before birds or whether birds came from
>dinosaurs.
Those two propositions aren't mutually exclusive.
>Seems that they believed dinosaurs came
>first, but now they have found birds that preceeded
>dinosaurs.
No, they haven't.
John Harshman
I'm arguing about the lesson drawn. The main trouble seems to be the
first premise. All humans are irrational at certain times and/or on
certain subjects. That doesn't mean that all scientists are irrational
on certain scientific questions. I wouldn't want to estimate just how
common the particular sort of irrationality you mention is.
>> I agree that various other scientists have become
>> irrationally attached to their favorite hypotheses. But BANDits have
>> done so to a degree that's rare. Quantity has a quality all its own. But
>> that's not the central feature of the analogy. As I hope I have
>> explained several times already, it's the inability of proponents to
>> make a consistent dividing line between supposedly separate groups, for
>> the reason that the groups aren't actually separate.
>
> I would disagree as to the rarity of the BANDits attachment. Yes you have
> explained the basis of your analogy, and I don't think either I or
> Richard Harter failed to understand that point. We were both simply
> objecting to the comparison to a creationist - who doesn't believe in
> science - vs. coming up with a comparison to a scientist who refused to
> let go of a pet theory, e.g. Agassiz.
Again, you are mistaking or ignoring the basis of my comparison. It's
not refusal to face evidence, per se. A comparison to Agassiz would not
incorporate the features I'm looking at. That's why I used the analogy I
did, which as I seem to have to remind you, is not of BANDits to
creationists, but of BANDit inability to delimit birds with creationist
inability to delimit humans.
>>> The problem is that bringing in the loaded term "creationist" in itself
>>> affects the debate, even if the intent is intellectually justified. I
>>> ran into a similar situation myself in a recent discussion on the Gazda
>>> situation. Your analogy may have some merit. but it clearly could have
>>> been better worded.
>> In what way?
>>
>> The analogy between BANDits' view of birds/dinosaurs and creationists'
>> view of humans/apes has several points of similarity I didn't mention,
>> too. For example, one popular BAND trope (mentioned in the press
>> release) is the idea of a temporal gap: according to the BAND story, the
>> oldest bird fossils are much older than their presumed theropod
>> ancestors. This is logically quite similar to "if humans came from
>> monkeys, why are there still monkeys?".
>
> Well,actually, as far as I can see, no it isn't. It would be logically
> similar to an argument that hominid fossils predate the ape-monkey split,
> therefore humans are monkeys but not apes. And this argument has not been
> made by anyone to the best of my knowledge.
Let me explain the similarity. If you ask the monkey question, it's
because you misconceive evolution as a linear process in which ancestral
groups transform into descendant groups. If it's a branching process,
the question goes away. Living monkeys are our cousins, not our
ancestors. Similarly, BANDits say that Velociraptor, etc., is a claimed
bird ancestor. But of course nobody claims that, merely that
Velociraptor is an exemplar of various ancestral states, much like
living monkeys. The temporal gap is significant only if you take the
linear view of evolution. If it's a branching process, the question goes
away. Cretaceous dromaeosaurs are birds' cousins, not their ancestors.
John Harshman
Sorry, but you constantly reject scientific thinking when it comes to
anything mentioned in Genesis. You accept a view of earth history that
comes solely from revelation. That's the antithesis of scientific
thinking. Now it's true that plenty of people who believe in god as the
creator don't do as you do. But don't say "we".
Suzanne
The word "we" did not modify "people that believe that God is
the Creator." It referred to us all on the planet. "We" meaning
mankind. If you understood what I wrote, I said that one would
not want a doctor that cut into someone using only faith, but
there was a need for him to have studied evidence and to have
learned his profession through science. I made the case that
we do (all of us) some things by faith (the light switch example)
and some things by evidence. It's not one and discard the other,
it's both that we need. There is a place for both.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Augray" <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4eb9459p1j708tsqf...@4ax.com...
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080208-bird-origins.html
>
Suzanne
John S. Wilkins
Think about this: "birds began before dinosaurs ended" doesn't mean
"birds began before dinosaurs began", does it?
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
TomS
<1j1zbfx.192fi4q12veuusN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."
B..b..but, if dinosaurs turned into birds, how come there were still
dinosaurs?
Seriously, though: It has long been known that there were birds
before the dinosaur die-off. Archaeopteryx was around long before
the KT boundary. The news in the headline is evidence about one branch
of the birds, the so-called "modern" birds.
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
Augray
wrote in <xfj1m.2637$OF1....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> :
As John's already pointed out, just because A began before B ended
doesn't mean that A began before B began. The earliest known bird is
150 million years old, and the earliest known dinosaur is 230 million
years old.
On another point, the page you point to says that "Fossil records
suggest that modern birds originated 60 million years ago...", but
whoever wrote it seems to be unaware of _Vegavis_, which is in the
same Order (Anseriformes) as ducks and geese (hence, it qualifies as a
modern bird), and which predates the extinction at the end of the
Cretaceous. _Vegavis_ shows that the radiation of modern birds was
well under way before the "dinosaur die-off".
John Harshman
That makes it even less applicable.
> If you understood what I wrote, I said that one would
> not want a doctor that cut into someone using only faith, but
> there was a need for him to have studied evidence and to have
> learned his profession through science. I made the case that
> we do (all of us) some things by faith (the light switch example)
> and some things by evidence. It's not one and discard the other,
> it's both that we need. There is a place for both.
You have distorted the meaning of "faith". Faith is a belief in the
absence of evidence. Even if I didn't know why a light switch worked, I
would know that it worked, because I have seen it happen. That's not
faith. Faith is in fact unnecessary. Now I do accept the truth of some
things I haven't seen, but the word you're looking for there isn't
faith, but "trust". Pending evidence to the contrary, I trust the
accounts of various other people. This is nothing like religious faith,
in which evidence is not only irrelevant but positively avoided. Faith
has no place in science, and I would argue that it has no proper place
anywhere in life.
Look at you, for instance. You use faith to answer scientific questions.
You ignore or distort data whenever it leads to conclusions that would
contradict your faith. That's neither useful nor healthy. Faith is the
death of science.
John Harshman
same thing. Fossils of modern birds (Neornithes) are exceedingly rare
before the K/T boundary. But fossils of extinct bird groups, like
enantiornithines and ichthyornithids, are much more common, going back
to the early Cretaceous.
Ye Old One
Or WVB to a scientist.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
TomS
<I3X0m.5691$iz2....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>, Suzanne stated..."
It is despicable to compare creationism to Nazism.
But I would note that creationism is something other than belief
in God as Creator.
TomS
<I3X0m.5691$iz2....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>, Suzanne stated..."
>
>
John Harshman
> "On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:15:58 -0500, in article
> <I3X0m.5691$iz2....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>, Suzanne stated..."
>>
>> "Martin Andersen" <d...@ikke.nu> wrote in message
>> news:4a40f898$0$48233$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Try reading the context here. I know that takes
>>>>> some effort, because JTEM deletes it. But
>>>>> nobody is accusing anyone of being a creationist
>>>>> here.
>>>> No, you're just *Comparing* them to Nazis...errrr...
>>>> Creationists.
>>>>
>>>> It's hyperbole.
>>>>
>>> Eh... all I see is you comparing creationism to Nazism. I can see
>>> some resemblances between the two, but I can't see the relevance.
>>>
>> Someone's believing that God is the Creator is not the
>> same thing as being a Nazi. It's like comparing a rose
>> petal to an iron foundry.
>> Suzanne
>>
>
> It is despicable to compare creationism to Nazism.
>
> But I would note that creationism is something other than belief
> in God as Creator.
Before this all gets too far, I would like to point out that nobody has
actually compared creationism to Nazism in this thread. Susanne is
complaining about something that didn't happen. And this should not come
as a surprise.
Augray
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
<VqKdnU4fz7q...@giganews.com> :
This is a good point to make.
And just in case you're unaware of it (which would be surprising, but
one never knows) the study the National Geographic page refers to is
open access, and available it
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-6-6.pdf
John Harshman
William Morse
I am sure you truly believe in what you say :-) But let's look at it. You
have seen a light switch work. Others have "seen" miracles occur. So they
know that they occur, because they have seen it happen.
As another example : in a well known experiment, people failed to see a
gorilla walk across a stage. Observation is not to be trusted. Your
statement that you "have seen it happen" and $1.50 will get you a cup of
coffee.
In fact a basic statement in science is your "I trust the accounts of
various other people", but that in turn is based on the assumption that
there is not a massive conspiracy.A massive conspiracy is statistically
extraordinarily unlikely. Now the preceding statement is based on a
rather interesting faith, which is that mathematics exactly correlates to
the real world. Do you have faith in that?
The general answer is that in every case we have examined, the
correlation holds. So we have good reason for our faith.
But let's look at religious faith by similar criteria. There are numerous
other people attesting to the accounts. There is often personal evidence
that it works, based on local faith-based community involvement. Really
the argument boils down to rigor, as rightly it should.
Yours,
Bill Morse
John Harshman
I would suggest that no two of these cases are similar. In the case of
observed miracles, I'm willing to trust that some person has seen
something, but interpretation is quite different. In the gorilla case,
it's a question of noticing or failing to notice something. A light
switch is rather simpler, difficult to avoid noticing, and repeatable at
will. Try it yourself.
> In fact a basic statement in science is your "I trust the accounts of
> various other people", but that in turn is based on the assumption that
> there is not a massive conspiracy.A massive conspiracy is statistically
> extraordinarily unlikely. Now the preceding statement is based on a
> rather interesting faith, which is that mathematics exactly correlates to
> the real world. Do you have faith in that?
No. I have an inference (induction) based on a great many events.
> The general answer is that in every case we have examined, the
> correlation holds. So we have good reason for our faith.
If we have good reason, I would argue that it isn't faith.
Ye Old One
Silly woman. Dinosaurs existed for many millions of years. At some
point birds evolved from one type of dinosaur. Birds and the other
dinosaurs then co-existed for millions of years until the KT
extinction killed off all non-avian dinosaurs.
Birds are still here, the sole surviving line of the once highly
diverse dinosaur lineage.
Get it now?
--
Bob.
William Morse
So your statement that you know that a light switch worked because "I
have seen it happen" should have been because "I have seen it happen
consistently and repeatedly". And as to the gorilla case, it is easy to
come up with similar examples (e.g. optical illusions) in which people
repeatedly see things that aren't there. I grant that observed miracles
are always special cases, which is why my argument led up to the
statement about rigor.
>> In fact a basic statement in science is your "I trust the accounts of
>> various other people", but that in turn is based on the assumption that
>> there is not a massive conspiracy.A massive conspiracy is statistically
>> extraordinarily unlikely. Now the preceding statement is based on a
>> rather interesting faith, which is that mathematics exactly correlates
>> to the real world. Do you have faith in that?
>
> No. I have an inference (induction) based on a great many events.
And why, exactly, do you think that allows you to make a prediction about
the next event?
>> The general answer is that in every case we have examined, the
>> correlation holds. So we have good reason for our faith.
>
> If we have good reason, I would argue that it isn't faith.
And if I am not busy being contrarian I would agree with you. But see my
question above.
>> But let's look at religious faith by similar criteria. There are
>> numerous other people attesting to the accounts. There is often
>> personal evidence that it works, based on local faith-based community
>> involvement. Really the argument boils down to rigor, as rightly it
>> should.
I notice you didn't respond to this last paragraph, but it is really the
most interesting. Much of religious faith, which you rightly define as
belief in the absence of evidence, is I think in the real world actually
based on apparent evidence, e.g. based on testimony of other people.
Notice I say apparent evidence, because in science we call this anecdote.
But in terms of psychology anecdotal evidence, especially reinforced
anecdotal evidence, is quite convincing. So if all of your neighbors tell
you it is true, it stops becoming faith even though all of them are only
saying it is true based on faith. Thus the value of double-blind.
Yours,
Bill Morse
John Harshman
What a pity the creationists are so thin on the ground, and you are
reduced to arguing about nothing with me. Ah, well. We take such
opportunities as we are given.
>>> In fact a basic statement in science is your "I trust the accounts of
>>> various other people", but that in turn is based on the assumption that
>>> there is not a massive conspiracy.A massive conspiracy is statistically
>>> extraordinarily unlikely. Now the preceding statement is based on a
>>> rather interesting faith, which is that mathematics exactly correlates
>>> to the real world. Do you have faith in that?
>> No. I have an inference (induction) based on a great many events.
>
> And why, exactly, do you think that allows you to make a prediction about
> the next event?
Without induction, science is impossible. As in fact is ordinary life.
There is of course no rigorous logical defense of its validity. It
merely seems to work. You may, if you wish, choose to reject the
validity of science and/or ordinary life. Hey, Tony Pagano does. Why
shouldn't you?
>>> The general answer is that in every case we have examined, the
>>> correlation holds. So we have good reason for our faith.
>> If we have good reason, I would argue that it isn't faith.
>
> And if I am not busy being contrarian I would agree with you. But see my
> question above.
>
>>> But let's look at religious faith by similar criteria. There are
>>> numerous other people attesting to the accounts. There is often
>>> personal evidence that it works, based on local faith-based community
>>> involvement. Really the argument boils down to rigor, as rightly it
>>> should.
>
> I notice you didn't respond to this last paragraph, but it is really the
> most interesting. Much of religious faith, which you rightly define as
> belief in the absence of evidence, is I think in the real world actually
> based on apparent evidence, e.g. based on testimony of other people.
I have my doubts. I think that testimony is window-dressing. I think
that faith arises from two sources: early indoctrination and a will or
need to believe.
> Notice I say apparent evidence, because in science we call this anecdote.
> But in terms of psychology anecdotal evidence, especially reinforced
> anecdotal evidence, is quite convincing. So if all of your neighbors tell
> you it is true, it stops becoming faith even though all of them are only
> saying it is true based on faith. Thus the value of double-blind.
Again, I would claim that this anecdotal evidence is peripheral to faith.
Michael Siemon
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> William Morse wrote:
...
> > I notice you didn't respond to this last paragraph, but it is really the
> > most interesting. Much of religious faith, which you rightly define as
> > belief in the absence of evidence, is I think in the real world actually
> > based on apparent evidence, e.g. based on testimony of other people.
>
> I have my doubts. I think that testimony is window-dressing. I think
> that faith arises from two sources: early indoctrination and a will or
> need to believe.
Yes and no. I don't dispute that much, probably most, "faith" is the
habit induced by practice (early indoctrination), and is maintained by
the probable pain/difficulty (i.e., your "will or need to believe") in
abandoning that. But people _do_ abandon their early religion quite
frequently (the Southern Baptists are suddenly confronting this as a
failure in their recruitment model :-))
> > Notice I say apparent evidence, because in science we call this anecdote.
> > But in terms of psychology anecdotal evidence, especially reinforced
> > anecdotal evidence, is quite convincing. So if all of your neighbors tell
> > you it is true, it stops becoming faith even though all of them are only
> > saying it is true based on faith. Thus the value of double-blind.
>
> Again, I would claim that this anecdotal evidence is peripheral to faith.
Not when that faith is under serious and rational challenge (that the
person so challenged cannot honestly evade). At that point, the "witness
of saints" -- the anecdotal evidence that would never overcome serious
critical evaluation -- actually tends to be extremely important. Even
if one must "translate" traditionally-phrased witness into terms that
allow for the different context of the person so challenged. It is for
this reason that I personally claim that (with Christianity as the main
example, and without any certainty that the example generalizes) it is
_precisely_ that "witness" which is the bedrock on which the faith is
propagated from generation to generation. Without it, all doctrine or
indoctrination becomes null and void to any serious challenge.
And because a "faith commitment" is _not_ a matter of critical reason,
the obvious objections to this "witness" from the standpoint of science
(or any other reason-critical discipline) don't actually undercut that
reliance.
I'm sure that's very objectionable to those like Dawkins and Myazrz
(ob misspelling...) who are all-so-pure in their notion that _only_
critical reason counts. But I am reporting how it actually is.
John Harshman
> In article <kdednaMNwYh...@giganews.com>,
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> William Morse wrote:
> ...
>>> I notice you didn't respond to this last paragraph, but it is really the
>>> most interesting. Much of religious faith, which you rightly define as
>>> belief in the absence of evidence, is I think in the real world actually
>>> based on apparent evidence, e.g. based on testimony of other people.
>> I have my doubts. I think that testimony is window-dressing. I think
>> that faith arises from two sources: early indoctrination and a will or
>> need to believe.
>
> Yes and no. I don't dispute that much, probably most, "faith" is the
> habit induced by practice (early indoctrination), and is maintained by
> the probable pain/difficulty (i.e., your "will or need to believe") in
> abandoning that. But people _do_ abandon their early religion quite
> frequently (the Southern Baptists are suddenly confronting this as a
> failure in their recruitment model :-))
I would suggest that those who abandon their faith are lacking in the
second component, need to believe. I don't see any disagreement with my
claims here.
>>> Notice I say apparent evidence, because in science we call this anecdote.
>>> But in terms of psychology anecdotal evidence, especially reinforced
>>> anecdotal evidence, is quite convincing. So if all of your neighbors tell
>>> you it is true, it stops becoming faith even though all of them are only
>>> saying it is true based on faith. Thus the value of double-blind.
>> Again, I would claim that this anecdotal evidence is peripheral to faith.
>
> Not when that faith is under serious and rational challenge (that the
> person so challenged cannot honestly evade).
How long have you been reading TO? People with a need to believe are
well insulated from serious and rational challenges. There is nothing
such a person can't honestly evade. (OK, "honestly" is problematic, but
lying to one's self is easy.)
> At that point, the "witness
> of saints" -- the anecdotal evidence that would never overcome serious
> critical evaluation -- actually tends to be extremely important.
I would claim that this witness is merely an epiphenomenon.
> Even
> if one must "translate" traditionally-phrased witness into terms that
> allow for the different context of the person so challenged. It is for
> this reason that I personally claim that (with Christianity as the main
> example, and without any certainty that the example generalizes) it is
> _precisely_ that "witness" which is the bedrock on which the faith is
> propagated from generation to generation. Without it, all doctrine or
> indoctrination becomes null and void to any serious challenge.
This would be like a knight who claims that his armor of kleenex
protects him from all harm. It seems to me that faith must be primary
here, because it's necessary in order to believe in the kleenex in the
first place, there being no empirical evidence that it works.
> And because a "faith commitment" is _not_ a matter of critical reason,
> the obvious objections to this "witness" from the standpoint of science
> (or any other reason-critical discipline) don't actually undercut that
> reliance.
>
> I'm sure that's very objectionable to those like Dawkins and Myazrz
> (ob misspelling...) who are all-so-pure in their notion that _only_
> critical reason counts. But I am reporting how it actually is.
Why would you imagine that you are disagreeing with Dawkins or Meiyors
here?
Kent Paul Dolan
> Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>> That is in no sense "hyperbole",
> In talk.origins of all places? Please. That's not
> funny.
Hyperbole is exaggeration, not mischosen comparison
or incorrect analogy.
Stop arguing with your betters when you cannot be
bothered to do your homework.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=hyperbole
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> I would disagree as to the rarity of the BANDits
> attachment. Yes you have explained the basis of
> your analogy, and I don't think either I or
> Richard Harter failed to understand that point.
> We were both simply objecting to the comparison to
> a creationist - who doesn't believe in science -
> vs. coming up with a comparison to a scientist who
> refused to let go of a pet theory, e.g. Agassiz.
I don't think so.
I don't mean to put the following words in Dr.
Harshman's mouth, these are my own words.
The main point for me in the analogy that makes it a
valid one is the similarity of the two groups, BAND
confreres and creationists, on the axis of
invincible ignorance.
No matter how many facts are provided, the opinions
of neither group on that group's major belief can be
changed.
Wriggling and thrashing around to avoid confronting
the facts that should change your opinions isn't
science, nor is it any resemblence of science.
The details of the reconciliation of the new facts
in order to tuck them conveniently out of sight,
without letting them change the major belief (which
John described for BAND confrere Alan Feduccia) is
much like the transition from YECs to OECs.
"We'll accommodate what we cannot exclude, but our
conclusion ('goddidit') will still stand because
that conclusion will suddenly be buttressed by
previously unused claims equally outlandish with the
prior outlandish claims now proven indefensible".
xanthian.
BTW, this excellent video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU&feature=player_embedded
and the ten bladed tool it provides:
Baloney Detection Kit
1: is the source reliable?
2: does the source often make similar claims?
3: have the claims been verified by someone else?
4: does this fit with the way we know the world
works?
5: has anyone tried to falsify or disprove the
claim? (counter-arguments)
6: where does the preponderance of the evidence
point to?
7: is the claimant playing by the rules of
science?
8: is the claimant providing positive evidence,
or just denying the other theories?
9: does the new theory account for as many
phenomena as the old one?
10: are personal beliefs driving this claim?
would be an excellent flensing mechanism for that
bloated beast, creationism.
[Thanks to nikolai kingesly for typing that list
into Usenet.]
Jeffrey Turner
>
> It should also be pointed out that "birds" and "modern birds" aren't the
> same thing. Fossils of modern birds (Neornithes) are exceedingly rare
> before the K/T boundary. But fossils of extinct bird groups, like
> enantiornithines and ichthyornithids, are much more common, going back
> to the early Cretaceous.
When do we find the first post-modern birds?
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
John S. Wilkins
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> >
> > It should also be pointed out that "birds" and "modern birds" aren't the
> > same thing. Fossils of modern birds (Neornithes) are exceedingly rare
> > before the K/T boundary. But fossils of extinct bird groups, like
> > enantiornithines and ichthyornithids, are much more common, going back
> > to the early Cretaceous.
>
> When do we find the first post-modern birds?
>
Not until the 1960s, in Paris.
Richard Harter
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>John Harshman wrote:
>
>>
>> It should also be pointed out that "birds" and "modern birds" aren't the
>> same thing. Fossils of modern birds (Neornithes) are exceedingly rare
>> before the K/T boundary. But fossils of extinct bird groups, like
>> enantiornithines and ichthyornithids, are much more common, going back
>> to the early Cretaceous.
>
>When do we find the first post-modern birds?
They are to be found in post-WW II Parisian Cafes. Common plumage
is a black turtleneck sweater and beret. The cry of the early
species was a plaintive kammoo. The taxonomy of archaic
post-modern birds is confused. Some scholars distinguish between
the existentialist bird and the post-modern bird but current
opinion among those who agree with me is that the existentialist
bird did not exist as such, but rather was a precursor, i.e., a
pre-post-modern bird. The celebrated DerryDah bird, so called
because of its cry can also be found on the East Coast of the USA
in the state of Delaware where it lives in symbiosis with the
workers on DE construction sites.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
If I do not see as far as others, it is because
I stand in the footprints of giants.
Michael Siemon
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
...
> >When do we find the first post-modern birds?
>
> They are to be found in post-WW II Parisian Cafes. Common plumage
> is a black turtleneck sweater and beret. The cry of the early
> species was a plaintive kammoo. The taxonomy of archaic
> post-modern birds is confused.
ain't it just? sort of like, if you can remember the (late) 60s,
you must not have been there... sadly, I do remember them...
> Some scholars distinguish between
> the existentialist bird and the post-modern bird but current
> opinion among those who agree with me is that the existentialist
> bird did not exist as such, but rather was a precursor, i.e., a
> pre-post-modern bird.
Just so (there's a story in that...)
> The celebrated DerryDah bird, so called
> because of its cry can also be found on the East Coast of the USA
> in the state of Delaware where it lives in symbiosis with the
> workers on DE construction sites.
Down, fang. Derri-derridown fang.
raven1
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>John Harshman wrote:
>
>>
>> It should also be pointed out that "birds" and "modern birds" aren't the
>> same thing. Fossils of modern birds (Neornithes) are exceedingly rare
>> before the K/T boundary. But fossils of extinct bird groups, like
>> enantiornithines and ichthyornithids, are much more common, going back
>> to the early Cretaceous.
>
>When do we find the first post-modern birds?
JTEM
> Hyperbole is exaggeration, not mischosen comparison
> or incorrect analogy.
You're arguing that comparing the B.A.N.D. people to
creationists isn't exaggeration? Please. That's not
funny. Again. maybe in some other group, one where
creationists aren't viewed as ignorant and/or deceitful.
You might as well compare them to Hitler.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>> Hyperbole is exaggeration, not mischosen
>> comparison or incorrect analogy.
> You're arguing that comparing the B.A.N.D. people
> to creationists isn't exaggeration?
[idiocy snipped]
Apparently you've commenced a new career, or
resumed an old career, as a meat-head.
Dr. Harshman carefully explained that it was the
behaviors, not the persons, which were being
compared.
You completely ignored that explanation by him in
your answer to me, direct intellectual dishonesty
by you.
So, once more time, your use of "hyperbole" was both
a falsehood and an incorrect use of English.
Live with it, you aren't going to change the
dictionary, nor are you going to change the facts.
If you continue to behave like someone whose
opinions can't be changed by mere facts, then you
are going to join the ranks of those recognized as
among the invincibly ignorant, right alongside the
creationists, mimicking them behavior for behavior.
Aren't you glad life offers you so many choices?
Don't you wish you were quicker on the uptake in
recognizing the good ones?
xanthian.