"Feathers and function in dinosaurs"
Kent Paul Dolan
with feathers on the evolution of aviforms and avian
flight can be read here.
http://www.actazool.org/temp/%7B7E28343B-5FC2-4B8E-9492-17FB22255E6A%7D.pdf
This won't do much to convince the agenda-crippled,
but the rest of us can enjoy the read.
Quantum valeat.
xanthian.
John Harshman
A nice short review with some decent photos. Thanks. Out of curiosity,
who are the agenda-crippled you were thinking of there? I don't see
anything so far I find disagreeable.
The most interesting questionis whether the psittacosaur bristles are
homologous to feathers. If so, that would push the origin of feathers
(or whatever you want to call them) from Coelurosauria to Dinosauria.
And that would suggest that these structures were not initially evolved
for insulation. But that doesn't mean that the feathered body covering
of Sinosauropteryx was not insulation. Your middle ear bones were not
initially evolved for hearing either, but as supports for a
filter-feeding apparatus. We have to be careful to make clear what
character states and nodes of the tree we're talking about at any given
time; evolution follows a twisty path.
Augray
wrote in <1176164138.8...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> :
Unfortunately, it makes the erroneous claim the Longisquama is an
archosaur. Other than that, it was pretty good.
>Quantum valeat.
>
>xanthian.
Ken Shackleton
> A very nice review of the implications of dinosaurs
> with feathers on the evolution of aviforms and avian
> flight can be read here.
>
>
> This won't do much to convince the agenda-crippled,
> but the rest of us can enjoy the read.
>
> Quantum valeat.
>
> xanthian.
Excellent article, fascinating subject; I enjoyed it very much.
John Harshman
It might be an archosaur. Can you conclusively place it somewhere else?
Dale Kelly
> A very nice review--
there is no evolution
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Ken Shackleton
I just read your website.....you're not trippin' in acid right now,
are you?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1176171840.3...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>):
To quote that famous philosopher Will Smith, he's not trippin', he's fallen
and he can't get up.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Cory Albrecht
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:15:38 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
>> A very nice review--
>
> there is no evolution
>
And, as usual, Dale, you offer no proof for your assertion. We're
supposed to believe you why?
George
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:15:38 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
>> A very nice review--
>
> there is no evolution
Thus proclaimeth Dave Kelly, so it must be true.
George
JTEM
> This won't do much to convince the agenda-crippled,
> but the rest of us can enjoy the read.
| The presence of arboreal dinosaurs such as Microraptor,
| Sinornithosaurus and Epidendrosaurus, which are
| generally believed to be the closest relatives of birds,
| provides not only important evidence for the arboreal
| hypothesis of the origin of avian flight and for our
| understanding of the life style of the ancestors of
| birds,
This is as free of an agenda as Fox "news" is fair &
balanced.
Most interesting are the questions it raises, not any
question is hopes to answer.
>
> Quantum valeat.
>
> xanthian.
Augray
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
<m1CSh.6947$Kd3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> :
I think that the absence of an antorbital fenestra argues against
this.
>Can you conclusively place it somewhere else?
A phylogenetic analysis by Phil Senter (215 characters and 85 OTUs)
places it outside Archosauromorpha. The only other analysis that I'm
aware of places it in the Prolacertiforms, but this analysis is
probably flawed.
gregwrld
Grow up.
John Harshman
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 01:48:02 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
> <m1CSh.6947$Kd3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> :
>
>
>>Augray wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 9 Apr 2007 17:15:38 -0700, "Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com>
>>>wrote in <1176164138.8...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>A very nice review of the implications of dinosaurs
>>>>with feathers on the evolution of aviforms and avian
>>>>flight can be read here.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.actazool.org/temp/%7B7E28343B-5FC2-4B8E-9492-17FB22255E6A%7D.pdf
>>>>
>>>>This won't do much to convince the agenda-crippled,
>>>>but the rest of us can enjoy the read.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, it makes the erroneous claim the Longisquama is an
>>>archosaur. Other than that, it was pretty good.
>>
>>It might be an archosaur.
>
> I think that the absence of an antorbital fenestra argues against
> this.
I had thought it wasn't well enough preserved to tell if it did or
didn't have one.
>
>>Can you conclusively place it somewhere else?
>
> A phylogenetic analysis by Phil Senter (215 characters and 85 OTUs)
> places it outside Archosauromorpha. The only other analysis that I'm
> aware of places it in the Prolacertiforms, but this analysis is
> probably flawed.
I vaguely remember the second analysis, but not the first. Can you cite?
Augray
<dale....@comcast.net> wrote in
<pan.2007.04...@comcast.net> :
>On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:15:38 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
>> A very nice review--
>
>there is no evolution
One only has to look at animal husbandry to see that you're wrong.
Kermit
> "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>
> > This won't do much to convince the agenda-crippled,
> > but the rest of us can enjoy the read.
>
> | The presence of arboreal dinosaurs such as Microraptor,
> | Sinornithosaurus and Epidendrosaurus, which are
> | generally believed to be the closest relatives of birds,
> | provides not only important evidence for the arboreal
> | hypothesis of the origin of avian flight and for our
> | understanding of the life style of the ancestors of
> | birds,
>
> This is as free of an agenda as Fox "news" is fair &
> balanced.
So which part of what you quoted do you disagree with?
Do Microraptor, | Sinornithosaurus and Epidendrosaurus fossils not
exist?
Are they not generally considered (by evolutionary scientists) to be
the closest bird relatives?
Do they not provide supporting evidence for the aboreal origin of
flight?
It is not very useful to quote something which most of your readers
will agree with, and act as though it is obvious support for your
implication that the Coelurosauria path to aves is poor science and
instead some sort of agenda.
>
> Most interesting are the questions it raises, not any
> question is hopes to answer.
OK. Can you mention a question or two?
>
>
>
> > Quantum valeat.
>
> > xanthian.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:15:38 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> > A very nice review--
>
> there is no evolution
You understand that scientists are not likely to accept simple
declarations which fly in the face of the evidence, yes?
Has it occurred to you that you might be wrong, and you have no way of
knowing, since you dismiss the necessity for measuring your assertions
against reality? Do you care?
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Kermit
Augray
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
<LrMSh.13855$JZ3....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net> :
>Augray wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 01:48:02 GMT, John Harshman
>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
>> <m1CSh.6947$Kd3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> :
>>
>>
>>>Augray wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 9 Apr 2007 17:15:38 -0700, "Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com>
>>>>wrote in <1176164138.8...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A very nice review of the implications of dinosaurs
>>>>>with feathers on the evolution of aviforms and avian
>>>>>flight can be read here.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.actazool.org/temp/%7B7E28343B-5FC2-4B8E-9492-17FB22255E6A%7D.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>This won't do much to convince the agenda-crippled,
>>>>>but the rest of us can enjoy the read.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately, it makes the erroneous claim the Longisquama is an
>>>>archosaur. Other than that, it was pretty good.
>>>
>>>It might be an archosaur.
>>
>> I think that the absence of an antorbital fenestra argues against
>> this.
>
>I had thought it wasn't well enough preserved to tell if it did or
>didn't have one.
There are conflicting accounts of just where it is in the skull, and
the example illustrated by Jones et al. (2001. _Longisquama_ Fossil
and Feather Morphology - Response. Science 291:1901-1902) looks like
two parallel cracks, resulting in something that's at least eight
times as long as it is wide. According to Senter
The counterslab exhibits a few small boneless areas, which have
been identified as one or more antorbital fenestrae (Sharov,
1970; Peters, 2000; Jones et al., 2001), anterior to the orbit.
However, these bone hiatuses are most plausibly interpreted as
preservational artifacts, because the corresponding areas on the
snout on the main slab are filled with bone.
>>>Can you conclusively place it somewhere else?
>>
>> A phylogenetic analysis by Phil Senter (215 characters and 85 OTUs)
>> places it outside Archosauromorpha. The only other analysis that I'm
>> aware of places it in the Prolacertiforms, but this analysis is
>> probably flawed.
>
>I vaguely remember the second analysis, but not the first. Can you cite?
Senter, P. J. 2003. Taxonomic Sampling Artifacts and the Phylogenetic
Position of Aves. Ph.D. dissertation, Northern Illinois University,
Dekalb, Illinois.
JTEM
> Are they not generally considered (by evolutionary
> scientists) to be the closest bird relatives?
You mean paleontologists?
> Do they not provide supporting evidence for the
> aboreal origin of flight?
Not without a whole lot of assumptions.
> It is not very useful to quote something which
> most of your readers will agree with,
OBEY YOUR TV! DO NOT QUESTION! NEVER DOUBT!
It is 100% dependent on disputed dating, and that
would be fuzzy enough WITHOUT the fact that one
dating makes the finds hugely important, and the
other reduces them to merely interesting.
> and act as though it is obvious support for your
> implication that the Coelurosauria path to aves
> is poor science
Considering how emotional you are over this, you're
proving my point. My issue is the lack of evidence.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale....@comcast.net>:
>On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:15:38 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
>> A very nice review--
>
>there is no evolution
You look silly with your fingers in your ears while shouting
"IS NOT!!!".
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca>:
Careful using terms like "animal husbandry" around fundies.
Augray
<1176225916.4...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> :
>"Kermit" <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 10, 3:16 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > This won't do much to convince the agenda-crippled,
>>> > but the rest of us can enjoy the read.
>>>
>>> | The presence of arboreal dinosaurs such as Microraptor,
>>> | Sinornithosaurus and Epidendrosaurus, which are
>>> | generally believed to be the closest relatives of birds,
>>> | provides not only important evidence for the arboreal
>>> | hypothesis of the origin of avian flight and for our
>>> | understanding of the life style of the ancestors of
>>> | birds,
>>>
>>> This is as free of an agenda as Fox "news" is fair &
>>> balanced.
>>
>>So which part of what you quoted do you disagree with?
>>Do Microraptor, | Sinornithosaurus and Epidendrosaurus fossils not
>>exist?
>>Are they not generally considered (by evolutionary scientists) to be
>>the closest bird relatives?
>
>You mean paleontologists?
Among others.
>>Do they not provide supporting evidence for the aboreal origin of
>>flight?
>
>Not without a whole lot of assumptions.
Such as?
>>It is not very useful to quote something which most of your readers
>>will agree with,
>
>OBEY YOUR TV! DO NOT QUESTION! NEVER DOUBT!
>
>It is 100% dependent on disputed dating, and that
>would be fuzzy enough WITHOUT the fact that one
>dating makes the finds hugely important, and the
>other reduces them to merely interesting.
I know that you dispute the dating of Epidendrosaurus. On what basis
do you dispute the dating of Microraptor and Sinornithosaurus?
>>and act as though it is obvious support for your
>>implication that the Coelurosauria path to aves is poor science
>
>Considering how emotional you are over this, you're
>proving my point. My issue is the lack of evidence.
In what way is the evidence lacking?
JTEM
> >It is 100% dependent on disputed dating, and that
> >would be fuzzy enough WITHOUT the fact that one
> >dating makes the finds hugely important, and the
> >other reduces them to merely interesting.
>
> I know that you dispute the dating of Epidendrosaurus.
Me? Honey, all I did was bring up the fact (Remember what
those are?) that it is disputed.
> On what basis do you dispute the dating of Microraptor
> and Sinornithosaurus?
Oh, psycho boy, tell us why it matters? How on earth can
anything dated long AFTER flight feathers (and
archaeopteryx) really tell us anything about the origins
of flight?
You being a knuckle dragging, drool soaked imbecile I'll
explain it One. More. Time. Yes, you won't get it, but
I'll do so anyway:
The arboreal theory on the origins of flight requires
(now get this) arboreal dinosaurs. No arboreal dinosaurs
before flight, nothing to support the arboreal theory.
You're welcome.
David Iain Greig
You are in a maze of twisty evolutionary paths, all alike.
> evolve
Which way do you wish to evolve?
> evolve feathers
You are eaten by a Grue.
SCORE: EXTINCT
--D.
David Iain Greig
Ohh, paleo-rap showdown. Yeah, Augray got your cite, right here.
(Just struck me as ... nevermind.)
--D.
David Iain Greig
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:15:38 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
>> A very nice review--
>
> there is no evolution
ONLY ZUUL!
--D. 'actazool'
>
Kent Paul Dolan
> The arboreal theory on the origins of flight
> requires (now get this) arboreal dinosaurs. No
> arboreal dinosaurs before flight, nothing to
> support the arboreal theory.
Yes, cretin, it does. Unfortunately for you, your
continuing refusal to entertain evidence of arborial
dinosaurs prior to birds just ran into another of
those "you didn't bother to do your homework"
instances for which you are so ridiculed here.
"It seems that the climbing function in
Epidendrosaurus was acquired before birds
(Archaeopteryx and other more advanced birds).
Although the arboreal life in the immediate
ancestors of birds was critical for the
development of the flight of birds, the arboreal
habit in Epidendrosaurus was most likely for food
or for escaping from predators (Bock 1986 ). Thus
the evolution of the arboreal capability in
theropods was not necessarily directly related to
flight in the beginning."
http://dml.cmnh.org/2002Aug/msg00584.html
The URLed document is the abstract and useful
excerpts quoted from a longer version which is
behind a pay per view barrier to the conduct of
science research.
HTH
xanthian.
JTEM
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The arboreal theory on the origins of flight
> > requires (now get this) arboreal dinosaurs. No
> > arboreal dinosaurs before flight, nothing to
> > support the arboreal theory.
>
> Yes, cretin, it does. Unfortunately for you, your
> continuing refusal to entertain evidence of arborial
> dinosaurs prior to birds just ran into another of
> those "you didn't bother to do your homework"
> instances for which you are so ridiculed here.
Huh? Did you suddenly turn as retarded as the rest of
the nodes? It's not about me, it's about the evidence.
And you are aware that the dating of Epidendrosaurus
is FAR from settled, that it is under dispute...
right? You know your "Evidence" amounts to ignoring
this fact... correct?
Augray
<1176255217....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
Hello?
>>>>It is not very useful to quote something which most of your readers
>>>>will agree with,
>>>
>>>OBEY YOUR TV! DO NOT QUESTION! NEVER DOUBT!
>>>
>>>It is 100% dependent on disputed dating, and that
>>>would be fuzzy enough WITHOUT the fact that one
>>>dating makes the finds hugely important, and the
>>>other reduces them to merely interesting.
>>
>> I know that you dispute the dating of Epidendrosaurus.
>
>Me? Honey, all I did was bring up the fact (Remember what
>those are?) that it is disputed.
By virtually no one.
>> On what basis do you dispute the dating of Microraptor
>> and Sinornithosaurus?
>
>Oh, psycho boy, tell us why it matters?
You seemed to think that it did.
>How on earth can
>anything dated long AFTER flight feathers (and
>archaeopteryx) really tell us anything about the origins
>of flight?
Since everyone agrees that these animals are closely related to
Archaeopteryx, it seems quite reasonable to assume that the
characteristics that they have in common would be also shared by their
last common ancestor.
>You being a knuckle dragging, drool soaked imbecile I'll
>explain it One. More. Time. Yes, you won't get it, but
>I'll do so anyway:
>
>The arboreal theory on the origins of flight requires
>(now get this) arboreal dinosaurs.
Which we have.
>No arboreal dinosaurs
>before flight, nothing to support the arboreal theory.
So much for shared derived characteristics.
>You're welcome.
Ken Shackleton
> A very nice review of the implications of dinosaurs
> with feathers on the evolution of aviforms and avian
> flight can be read here.
>
>
> This won't do much to convince the agenda-crippled,
> but the rest of us can enjoy the read.
>
>
> xanthian.
I had a thought....there has been much talk about whether or not the
origin of avian flight was arboreal or cursorial....and I was
wondering if this might be a false dichotomy. Here is my reasoning:
Vertebrate flight has evolved on at least three separate occasions, so
it obviously provides reproductive advantages under the right
circumstances.
The picture is becoming more clear that feathers were more common in
dinosaurs than many have suspected, especially the small theropds.
So...you have quite a number of small feathered dinosaurs running
around [and likely climbing trees]....perhaps with feathered
forelimbs....over millions of years. Is it possible that avian flight
evolved more than once?
Does the possibility of flight evolving more than once in small
feathered dinosaurs seem at all plausible to anyone else?
Thanks....
Ken
Augray
<ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote in
<1176338403.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> :
It's been suggested, but at this point in time there's no real
evidence for it, since the known volant forms are all closer to each
other than to any flightless theropod*.
*By "flightless", I don't mean "secondarily flightless".
>Thanks....
>
>Ken
>
JTEM
> >Me? Honey, all I did was bring up the fact
> >(Remember what those are?) that it is disputed.
>
> By virtually no one.
You're a sick puppy.
As a matter of fact, virtually no one had any reason
to place it in the Jurassic before a SINGLE study
disputed the earlier findings.
I know you're a mental case, but some of us prefer
to wait until matters are settled before accepting
extraordinary claims as fact.
Seriously, you drooling idiot, you have no idea just
how big this is? The origins of feathers and powered
flight in birds?
Kent Paul Dolan
> And you are aware that the dating of Epidendrosaurus
> is FAR from settled, that it is under dispute...
> right?
Funny how everything that disagrees with your
idiot ravings is somehow, on some planet far
from ours, "in dispute", according to you.
Unless you cite URLs for articles in accepted
evolutionary science journals documenting that
those "disputes" you claim are _still current
ones_, people are going to think your ass is on
fire from all the smoke you're blowing out of it.
Verb. Sap.
xanthian.
Cory Albrecht
> ONLY ZUUL!
Are you the gatekeeper?
Kent Paul Dolan
> David Iain Greig wrote, On 2007/04/11 09:30:
>> Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:15:38 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>>>> A very nice review--
>>> there is no evolution
>> ONLY ZUUL!
> Are you the gatekeeper?
Question is ambiguous.
Try again later.
xanthian.
JTEM
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And you are aware that the dating of Epidendrosaurus
> > is FAR from settled, that it is under dispute...
> > right?
>
> Funny how everything that disagrees with your
> idiot ravings is somehow, on some planet far
> from ours, "in dispute", according to you.
What's even funnier is that you'd base your position
on the fantasy that it isn't.
Sorry, but anyone who takes a moment to look for
themselves is going to know that you're blowing
smoke... to put it politely.
Let me know when you have something to say that makes
sense, moron.
Kent Paul Dolan
> "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> And you are aware that the dating of
>>> Epidendrosaurus is FAR from settled, that it is
>>> under dispute... right?
>> Funny how everything that disagrees with your
>> idiot ravings is somehow, on some planet far from
>> ours, "in dispute", according to you.
> What's even funnier is that you'd base your
> position on the fantasy that it isn't.
Strangely, I _furnished_ a URL supporting my version
of reality, pointing to an article from an accepted
journal where evolution is discussed.
You are of course going to furnish URLs that support
your claims, showing that there is some current and
widespread dispute over the antiquity of
Epidendrosaurus, in contrast to the URL I supplied
that put Epidendrosaurus pre-flight, after all your
whining at Augray for failing to furnish URLs,
right?
Rather, say, than just continuing to emit smoke at
your nether end while providing no documentation
that anything you have to say corresponds to reality?
Or perhaps you'd prefer merely to admit that you are
a gutless lying coward?
Hey, you get so many choices, it's like the fast
food franchise of acquiring crushed reputations, pick
one of many ways to destroy yours(*) for your dining
pleasure.
xanthian.
(*) Yours is long gone, of course, the only one you
have left reads "buffoon", but work with me here.
JTEM
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> >> Funny how everything that disagrees with your
> >> idiot ravings is somehow, on some planet far from
> >> ours, "in dispute", according to you.
> >
> > What's even funnier is that you'd base your
> > position on the fantasy that it isn't.
>
> Strangely, I _furnished_ a URL supporting my version
> of reality, pointing to an article from an accepted
> journal where evolution is discussed.
Huh? What the hell are you talking about?
Don't you even know what YOU said, what I was responding
to? You posted NOTHING to support your fantasy that the
dating of Epidendrosaurus is not under dispute.
Did you lose your place and start babbling about
Longisquama?
Please.
I'd say that your cake isn't finished baking, but the
truth is that your batter hasn't even been mixed yet!
And if you're wondering what that means I don't know.
But what I do know is that if you take everything
about Longisquama that isn't disputed and write it on
both your brain cells with room to spare.
Now go suck an egg, and wait for it to come out of the
hen first for a change!
Kent Paul Dolan
> xanthian wrote:
>> Strangely, I _furnished_ a URL supporting my
>> version of reality, pointing to an article from
>> an accepted journal where evolution is discussed.
> Huh? What the hell are you talking about?
:- It is also noteworthy that a recently described
:- coelurosaur with integumentary appendages,
:- Epidendrosaurus, has unambiguous arboreal-adapted
:- features in the foot (Zhang et al., 2002). More
:- importantly, the beds bearing this fossil are
:- probably of Late Jurassic age, earlier than for
:- all other known feathered theropods from the
:- Jehol Biota. It provides even more compelling
:- evidence for the arboreal hypothesis of the
:- origin of avian flight (see Ostrom 1986, for
:- contrary view), as well as the jumping/ balance
:- stage in the evolution of feathers.
:- http://www.actazool.org/temp/%7B7E28343B-5FC2-4B8E-9492-17FB22255E6A%7D.pdf
URLed in the first article in the thread. You've
just convicted yourself of starting to rave on the
subject using only your agenda for "facts" without
reading the base article for the discussion.
You want to provide us with more evidence that you
are a lackwit, or have you filled your quota for
the day?
xanthian.
JTEM
> URLed in the first article in the thread.
My goodness, you're still taking a large number of
those retard pills...
Your position is identical to bible thumpers. You're
using your scripture to prove your scripture.
Even worse, you're pulling this nonsense as part of
an unusually lame strawman. I responded to the
first article in the thread, and I pointed out that
(contrary to your ignorant opinion) it did have a
rather obvious agenda. Later I got more specific,
pointing out how it was 100% dependent on dating that
it under dispute.
Again, you're proving me correct. The only way it
can have something they're willing to call an
arboreal dinosaur BEFORE birds is by pretending that
the dating dispute is over, that the matter is
settled.
Augray
<1176341327.2...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> :
>>>Me? Honey, all I did was bring up the fact (Remember what
>>>those are?) that it is disputed.
>>
>>By virtually no one.
>
>You're a sick puppy.
>
>As a matter of fact, virtually no one had any reason
>to place it in the Jurassic before a SINGLE study
>disputed the earlier findings.
Do you seriously think that there's only been a single study that
"disputed the earlier findings"?
>I know you're a mental case, but some of us prefer
>to wait until matters are settled before accepting
>extraordinary claims as fact.
What's extraordinary about it? According to Gao & Ren
The age of the Daohugou beds as a focal topic was extensively
discussed at a conference organized by the China Geological
Survey (October of 2004, Shenyang). The flawed correlation of the
Daohugou fossil beds with the lower Yixian Formation was widely
criticized at the conference, and a correlation of the Daohugou
beds with the Middle Jurassic Haifanggou (Jiulongshan) Formation
was widely accepted based on evidence from several sources,
including regional stratigraphy, radiometric dating, and
paleontological studies...
Besides, I'm still waiting for any hint of a refutation of
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/14446af3dd77dfa4
The dating's pretty much settled, but I expect the hand waving will
continue.
>Seriously, you drooling idiot, you have no idea just
>how big this is? The origins of feathers and powered
>flight in birds?
What a complete non sequitur.
>>>> On what basis do you dispute the dating of Microraptor
>>>> and Sinornithosaurus?
>>>
>>>Oh, psycho boy, tell us why it matters?
>>
>>You seemed to think that it did.
Well?
Kent Paul Dolan
> I got more specific, pointing out how it was 100%
> dependent on dating that it under dispute.
For which you've furnished a URL, the very kind of
URL you insisted Augray was required to provide,
exactly *where*?
> Again, you're proving me correct. The only way it
> can have something they're willing to call an
> arboreal dinosaur BEFORE birds is by pretending
> that the dating dispute is over, that the matter
> is settled.
Since you have yet to prove that the dispute exists
anywhere except in the mass of rotted meat between
your ears, or that it is a current and ongoing
dispute rather than some tiny minority chirping off
somewhere on the tip of a splinter, no one has
"proved you correct". The only thing that has been
proved here, over and over and over again, is "JTEM
is an imbecile", a fact so widely recognized in
talk.origins, as to be beyond need of further proof,
or indeed of 99.99% of the proof you've furnished
on that issue up to date.
Now, about that URL you promised on the growth
rate of archaic crocodilians of body mass in the
tens of tons...? Perhaps you could quit spewing
idiocy in talk.origins long enough to tend to that
pretense that you weren't making up your facts out
of whole cloth?
HTH
xanthian.
JTEM
> On Apr 12, 10:32 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I got more specific, pointing out how it was 100%
> > dependent on dating that it under dispute.
>
> For which you've furnished a URL, the very kind of
> URL you insisted Augray was required to provide,
> exactly *where*?
Why, you monkey raping psycho! The very suggestion
that *Any* of this is not under dispute is... well...
it's just the sort of thing I've come to expect from
a monkey raping psycho!
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c55354m37w740tw3/
Okay, so never mind that *Everything* here is under
dispute, it's enough to wrap your monkey raping brain
around just one issue without dragging any more of those
messy facts into the fray... simple black & white
questions for simple minds I guess...
Further, let us ignore that your own cite doesn't even
positively date it to the Jurassic, but claims "probably
of Late Jurassic age."
Here's one:
http://www.dinosauromorpha.de/dinosauria_theropoda.htm
Here's another:
http://www.iczn.org/BZNSep2004general_articles.htm
Do a search on "Epidendrosaurus"
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/dinosaurs/downloads/chapters/15.pdf
If I haven't bored you entirely yet (and it's a shame
if I didn't):
http://www.paleomag.net/members/rixiangzhu/HYY-GRL-2004.pdf
It's this last one that firmly proves the point, while
also lending the most to be misrepresented (Get hopping!).
> Since you have yet to prove that the dispute exists
> anywhere
Only a monkey raping psycho would base their
reputation on the idea that *Any* of this is not
under dispute. Normal people laugh at such nonsense.
HTH.
Kent Paul Dolan
>> On Apr 12, 10:32 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I got more specific, pointing out how it was
>>> 100% dependent on dating that it under dispute.
I'm _sure_ you meant to express some comprehensible
thought in English there. Too bad you missed so
severely.
>> For which you've furnished a URL, the very kind of
>> URL you insisted Augray was required to provide,
>> exactly *where*?
> Why, you monkey raping psycho!
Ah, thank you, I love it when simple statements of
mine in temperate language can throw you into fits
of raving. Kicking you while your IQ is down [not
that your IQ is ever exactly "up"] just makes my
day.
> The very suggestion that *Any* of this is not
> under dispute is... well... it's just the sort
> of thing I've come to expect from a monkey raping
> psycho!
The question isn't (and has never been) merely "is
the antiquity of Epidendrosaurus in dispute" [and I
fully comprehend and ridicule your attempts here to
broaden the subject area from the fraudulant claim
of yours here being debunked to some claim you might
be able to defend], one can always find fruitcakes
arguing against both evidence and the zeitgeist of
an area of investigation, the question is "is there
widespread dispute among reputable investigators".
There is not.
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/c55354m37w740tw3/
The string "Epidendrosaurus" does not occur on that
web page, nor is there any discussion of an aging
dispute. The discussion there is about the
possibility that the therapod dinosaurs and the
aviforms evolved in parallel, not the claim of yours
currently in dispute.
[The reasoning there is also very suspect
and fraught with ignorance of how improbable
it would be for _several_ bird features to
evolve separately and in parallel in many
different therapod lineages.]
And that's hardly a reputable source:
>> Kurochkin thinks "sauriurines" (Archaeopteryx,
>> Jibeinia, confuciusornithids, enantiornithines,
>> Patagopteryx) evolved from theropods, but
>> ornithurines did not. A ludicrous notion if
>> there ever was one.
http://dml.cmnh.org/2001Feb/msg00711.html
> Okay, so never mind that *Everything* here is
> under dispute,
That would be "everything here is in dispute in the
rotted mass of meat between JTEM's ears". That
doesn't make "everything here" in dispute in the
wider universe, sadly for estimates of your mental
health and native intelligence.
> it's enough to wrap your monkey raping brain
Let's see, JTEM introduces URLs that he claims
support his contention that the antiquity of
Epidendrosaurus is "in dispute", the URLs are found
not to be discussing any such subject, and the
"monkey raping brain" belongs to _whom_, exactly,
again?
Scott Adams published a book titled "Always Avoid
Meetings with Time Wasting Morons". He might as well
have used "reading JTEM's postings" as examples of
such "meetings".
> around just one issue without dragging any more of
> those messy facts
Messy facts like the "dispute" you claim to be
ongoing but cannot document?
> into the fray... simple black & white questions
> for simple minds I guess...
Let's try some simple black and white questions [and
provide their answers, to save wear and tear on your
"rotted meat ear separation device"]:
Q: Is JTEM lying again?
A: Yes.
Q: Is JTEM evading providing documentation for his
contentions again?
A: Yes.
Q: Is JTEM a waste of good breathing oxygen better
reserved for higher forms of life like slime
molds?
A: Yes.
Q: Is JTEM a time wasting moron?
A: Yes.
Q: Is reading a JTEM posting to learn any "objective
science" a waste of time?
A: Yes.
Q: Is reading a JTEM posting to learn about the
preponderance of scientific opinion on any issue
one might choose counterproductive?
A: Yes.
Q: Is reading JTEM postings for amusement at his
incessant displays of abject stupidity and to
find a ripe target for a game of Kook-Smackdown,
the Usenet version of Whack-a-Mole, fun and
fruitful?
A: Yes.
See how productive black and white questions can be,
appropriately used?
> Further, let us ignore that your own cite doesn't
> even positively date it to the Jurassic, but
> claims "probably of Late Jurassic age."
Real practicing scientists, unlike Kook-Smackdown
game-target time wasting morons like you, tend to
speak cautiously, and to phrase their findings in
probabilities rather than certainties, knowing that
peer review is a dread mistress, and that one in
every twenty hard won "95% significance level
probability" findings is going to be dead wrong, by
very definition.
> Here's one:
> http://www.dinosauromorpha.de/dinosauria_theropoda.htm
That web page makes precisely no mention of a
dispute about the age of Epidendrosaurus. It
mentions Epidendrosaurus at all only once and in
passing, in a description of an embryo inside a
fossil therapod egg.
Apparently you think you can make your point here by
more of your persistent lying and misdirection.
Guess again.
> Here's another:
> http://www.iczn.org/BZNSep2004general_articles.htm
> Do a search on "Epidendrosaurus"
Obviously you are just shovelwaring any hit you get
on "Epidendrosaurus". That web page is not
discussing any dispute about the antiquity of
Epidendrosaurus, it is discussing a dispute about
what constitutes priority of publication, now that
web publication of legitimage journals exists,
because priority of publication is how one gets
credit for "discovering" a new species, and gets the
right to name it.
Again, you try to make your case by lies and
misdirection, again, you fail.
Grow up, or at least grow a brain.
> http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/dinosaurs/downloads/chapters/15.pdf
Once again, you swing and miss. That document
details the dispute about cursorial versus arborial
precursor origins of flight, not disputes about the
antiquity of Epidendrosaurus.
Obviously, with you again trying to prove that your
case is "supported" with evidence that has nothing
to do with your case, you are a pathological lying
twit, but we are left with the task of trying to
determine whether you are too illiterate to read the
documents and grasp what they say, or too lazy to
read the documents at all, merely throwing in any
hit you receive from a search engine without the
least attempt to understand its contents or which
positions it supports. The "JTEM is too illiterate
to read scientific documents" and the "JTEM is too
lazy to read scientific documents" hypotheses _both_
find heavy support in your talk.origins body of
postings. Reasonable people might chose to support
_both_ interpretations.
> If I haven't bored you entirely yet (and it's a
> shame if I didn't):
Oh, no, watching you truss yourself up for roasting,
noose yourself for the gallows, is infinitely
amusing.
> http://www.paleomag.net/members/rixiangzhu/HYY-GRL-2004.pdf
> It's this last one that firmly proves the point, while
> also lending the most to be misrepresented (Get hopping!).
How sad for your reputation tha Augray had already
debunked this document in
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e88a7bb30fde33eb
before I could even use it to beat you about the
head and shoulders.
>> Since you have yet to prove that the dispute exists
>> anywhere
> Only a monkey raping psycho would base their
> reputation on the idea that *Any* of this is not
> under dispute.
How sad for you that, as Augray substantiated, the
dispute is long ago resolved, leaving your ass
exposed for the brickbats of all passers-by.
> Normal people laugh at such nonsense.
Well I can't speak for _other_ normal people, nor
at my distant remove from the mode, claim to be all
that normal a person myself, but I choose to laugh
at _you_, as being a wonderful leaven to my
otherwise rather dreary days.
So, you shovelwared 5 URLs, three had nothing to do
with the subject, thereby documenting you as
lazy/illiterate, one was from a fringe kook with a
reputation for making ludicrous claims, and one was
for a "dispute" long ago resolved.
_Five_ strikes, and I'll bet you _still_ don't
understand that your time at the plate is over, and
will go on droning, never understanding why this
thread is "too long", what with your unceasing
additions of absurd nonsense to it.
HTH
xanthian.
Augray
<1176446819.0...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> :
>"Kent Paul Dolan" <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 12, 10:32 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I got more specific, pointing out how it was 100%
>> > dependent on dating that it under dispute.
>>
>> For which you've furnished a URL, the very kind of
>> URL you insisted Augray was required to provide,
>> exactly *where*?
>
>Why, you monkey raping psycho! The very suggestion
>that *Any* of this is not under dispute is... well...
>it's just the sort of thing I've come to expect from
>a monkey raping psycho!
>
>http://www.springerlink.com/content/c55354m37w740tw3/
>
>Okay, so never mind that *Everything* here is under
>dispute, it's enough to wrap your monkey raping brain
>around just one issue without dragging any more of those
>messy facts into the fray... simple black & white
>questions for simple minds I guess...
So, if someone disagrees with something, there's a controversy? I
daresay that Kurochkin is completely alone in his claims. No doubt
you'll now be saying that the fact of evolution is controversial
because creationists say it didn't happen.
>Further, let us ignore that your own cite doesn't even
>positively date it to the Jurassic, but claims "probably
>of Late Jurassic age."
But isn't it interesting that one of the authors of Dolan's cite is
also a co-author of
http://www.paleomag.net/members/rixiangzhu/HYY-GRL-2004.pdf which you
refer to down below?
>Here's one:
>
>http://www.dinosauromorpha.de/dinosauria_theropoda.htm
Referring to:
Buffetaut, E., G. Grellet-Tinner, V. Suteethorn, G. Cuny, H.
Tong, A. Kosir, L. Cavin, S. Chitsing, P. J. Griffiths, J.
Tabouelle & J. Le Loeuff. 2005. Minute theropod eggs and embryo
from the Lower Cretaceous of Thailand and the dinosaur-bird
transition. Naturwissenschaften 92:477–482.
the author of the web page states that
The authors discuss a possible origin of maniraptors like
Microraptor and Epidendrosaurus, which are contemporaneously
known from China.
But the paper itself is a bit broader in its chronology:
However, very small maniraptorans similar to _Microraptor
zhaoianus_ and _Epidendrosaurus ningchengensis_, from Chinese
formations that are roughly contemporaneous with the Sao Khua
Formation, could easily have laid the Phu Phok eggs.
Note the use of the word "roughly".
>Here's another:
>
>http://www.iczn.org/BZNSep2004general_articles.htm
>
>Do a search on "Epidendrosaurus"
It makes the mistake of claiming that Epidendrosaurus is from the
Yixian formation, which it's not.
>http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/dinosaurs/downloads/chapters/15.pdf
No basis for the claim that it's Early Cretaceous. Just because
someone believes something doesn't mean that they're right.
>If I haven't bored you entirely yet (and it's a shame
>if I didn't):
>
>http://www.paleomag.net/members/rixiangzhu/HYY-GRL-2004.pdf
>
>It's this last one that firmly proves the point, while
>also lending the most to be misrepresented (Get hopping!).
It's all addressed in Gao & Ren [2006. Radiometric Dating of
Ignimbrite from Inner Mongolia Provides no Indication of a Post-Middle
Jurassic Age for the Daohugou Beds. Acta Geologica Sinica (English
Edition) 80(1):46-49], which I summarized in
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/14446af3dd77dfa4 over
four months ago. Try and keep up.
Also, as pointed out above, one of the co-authors is the same as the
lead author of Dolan's cite. It looks like people can change their
minds as more evidence comes in. Who'd'a thunk it?
>> Since you have yet to prove that the dispute exists
>> anywhere
>
>Only a monkey raping psycho would base their
>reputation on the idea that *Any* of this is not
>under dispute. Normal people laugh at such nonsense.
>
>HTH.
I'm astonished that you don't advocate creationist positions. After
all, there's some dispute there too.
JTEM
> Ah, thank you, I love it when simple statements of
> mine in temperate language can throw you into fits
> of raving.
Oh, that's it, sit there and quote your mother instead
of getting right to the point. Sheesh! Like I have the
time to read all your garbage...
> > The very suggestion that *Any* of this is not
> > under dispute is... well... it's just the sort
> > of thing I've come to expect from a monkey raping
> > psycho!
>
> The question isn't (and has never been) merely "is
> the antiquity of Epidendrosaurus in dispute"
Um, psycho breath, that was the question. The very
specific question.
> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/c55354m37w740tw3/
>
> The string "Epidendrosaurus" does not occur on that
> web page,
Very clever of you to notice, as I never claimed that
it did. Quite clearly -- for those with reading
comprehension at least -- the link was associated with
my statement that *Everything* was under dispute. The
link, as it turns out, does establish that, yeah, pretty
much every conclusion of your cite is in dispute.
> That would [...]
Honestly, if you expect me to read past the first
sentence, you have to put something worth reading
up front. As enamored as you so clearly are with
yourself, you can't expect me to share your interest.
> > Here's another:
> >http://www.iczn.org/BZNSep2004general_articles.htm
> > Do a search on "Epidendrosaurus"
>
> Obviously you are just shovelwaring any hit you get
> on "Epidendrosaurus".
Not quite. I wanted to go in reverse. You wouldn't
understand, even if a grown-up explained it to you.
> >http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/dinosaurs/downloads/chapters/15.pdf
>
> Once again, you swing and miss. That document
> details the dispute about cursorial versus arborial
> precursor origins of flight, not disputes about the
> antiquity of Epidendrosaurus.
You're right. No dispute at all in the document. Instead,
it places it in the Cretaceous.
Nope, not so much as an acknowledgment that anyone
suggests otherwise.
Of course, with your lack of reading comprehension, I
can't claim to be surprised that you missed it...
> >http://www.paleomag.net/members/rixiangzhu/HYY-GRL-2004.pdf
> > It's this last one that firmly proves the point, while
> > also lending the most to be misrepresented (Get hopping!).
>
> How sad for your reputation tha Augray had already
> debunked this document in
Oh, please. Are you on drugs? "Augrey"? Debunked?
Not to mention the fact that your rant isn't germane to the
issue. What you wanted was proof-positive of the frigging
obvious, that the age is clearly under dispute!
And, yeah, it is. And it will continue to be, mental cases
aside. Idiot.
Nice attempt at a dodge though.
JTEM
> So, if someone disagrees with something, there's a
> controversy?
Mental case, this was a 2004 paper. People had been
placing it in the Cretaceous for years already.
Seriously, nut job, check out what it cites:
Augray
<1176530015.4...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
>"Kent Paul Dolan" <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> >http://www.paleomag.net/members/rixiangzhu/HYY-GRL-2004.pdf
>> > It's this last one that firmly proves the point, while
>> > also lending the most to be misrepresented (Get hopping!).
>>
>> How sad for your reputation tha Augray had already
>> debunked this document in
>
>Oh, please. Are you on drugs? "Augrey"? Debunked?
Actually, it was Gao & Ren who debunked it. See
Gao K.-Q., & Ren D. 2006. Radiometric Dating of Ignimbrite from
Inner Mongolia Provides no Indication of a Post-Middle Jurassic
Age for the Daohugou Beds. Acta Geologica Sinica (English
Edition) 80(1):46-49
and my summary of it at
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/14446af3dd77dfa4
[snip]
Augray
<1176530330.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> :
>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>On 12 Apr 2007 23:46:59 -0700, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>><1176446819.0...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>>>"Kent Paul Dolan" <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 12, 10:32 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I got more specific, pointing out how it was 100%
>>>> > dependent on dating that it under dispute.
>>>>
>>>> For which you've furnished a URL, the very kind of
>>>> URL you insisted Augray was required to provide,
>>>> exactly *where*?
>>>
>>>Why, you monkey raping psycho! The very suggestion
>>>that *Any* of this is not under dispute is... well...
>>>it's just the sort of thing I've come to expect from
>>>a monkey raping psycho!
>>>
>>>http://www.springerlink.com/content/c55354m37w740tw3/
>>>
>>>Okay, so never mind that *Everything* here is under
>>>dispute, it's enough to wrap your monkey raping brain
>>>around just one issue without dragging any more of those
>>>messy facts into the fray... simple black & white
>>>questions for simple minds I guess...
>>
>> So, if someone disagrees with something, there's a
>> controversy?
>
>Mental case, this was a 2004 paper.
No, Kurochkin's paper was published in 2006.
>People had been
>placing it in the Cretaceous for years already.
>
>Seriously, nut job, check out what it cites:
>
>http://www.paleomag.net/members/rixiangzhu/HYY-GRL-2004.pdf
What cites have you checked out? What do you think the most damning
cite is? Meanwhile, explain what's wrong with
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/14446af3dd77dfa4
Kent Paul Dolan
> "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I got more specific, pointing out how it was
>>> 100% dependent on dating that it under dispute.
>> For which you've furnished a URL, the very kind
>> of URL you insisted Augray was required to
>> provide, exactly *where*?
> Why, you monkey raping psycho!
JTEM-speak for "I pulled those facts out of my ass,
how dare you challenge me to provide a URL!" Right?
Sorry about the intellectual rape, monkey boy, but
you do keep putting your ass on display as your most
prominent intellectual feature.
Brightly colored, prominently and frequently
displayed asses like yours are widely used to invite
rape among the primates, and to invite swift boot
applications by talk.origins' masochistic kooks.
Yours keeps getting you kicked around the block,
mind-fucked where the sun of reality never shines.
So, I suppose you are a victim of your evolutionary
descent, perverse pain-loving sexual kinks, and
severe and worsening intellectual limitations, in
that regard.
I'd pity you if you weren't such fun to kick.
Valeat quantum valere potest.
xanthian, sore of toe, happy of heart.
JTEM
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why, you monkey raping psycho!
Nope. That WAS NOT in the article. It was in
the previous article, one you had ALREADY
responded to.
Damn, you can't even keep track of what you've
already mispresented... SHEESH!
Anyhow, retard, I'll bring you up to speed.
This was what it was all about:
"Kent Paul Dolan" <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
I said:
: And you are aware that the dating of Epidendrosaurus
: is FAR from settled, that it is under dispute...
: right?
A completely accurate statement that only a drooling
psycho like you would ever dispute. So, naturally,
you disputed it:
| Funny how everything that disagrees with your
| idiot ravings is somehow, on some planet far
| from ours, "in dispute", according to you.
So, yeah, I demonstrated how ill you are with this:
http://www.paleomag.net/members/rixiangzhu/HYY-GRL-2004.pdf
I guess that's why you're ranting & raving instead
of addressing facts... whatever it takes to
distract from reality.
Augray
<1176700982.1...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> :
Is that why you keep avoiding this?:
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/14446af3dd77dfa4
JTEM
> Is that why you keep avoiding this?:
>http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/14446af3dd77dfa4
Dude, I know you're completely insane & obsessed with inventing
fault with me, but you might have noticed that I directly addressed
this just a few postings up... and in the article that you were
responding to just now.
Like I've been telling you: Seek help.
Augray
<1176776307.6...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> :
>> Is that why you keep avoiding this?:
>>http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/14446af3dd77dfa4
>
>Dude, I know you're completely insane & obsessed with inventing
>fault with me, but you might have noticed that I directly addressed
>this just a few postings up... and in the article that you were
>responding to just now.
No, you didn't. In
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/14446af3dd77dfa4 I
summarized a paper that responded to
http://www.paleomag.net/members/rixiangzhu/HYY-GRL-2004.pdf
Hence, you didn't "address" much of anything. If you want to address
facts, address what's in
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/14446af3dd77dfa4 and
try and use your own words, rather than URLs, the contents of which
you obviously don't understand.
>Like I've been telling you: Seek help.
I don't need help to point out that you don't know what you're talking
about.
gregwrld
> On 16 Apr 2007 19:18:27 -0700, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
>
>
> > Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >>On 15 Apr 2007 22:23:02 -0700, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>"Kent Paul Dolan" <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>
> >>>I said:
>
> >>>: And you are aware that the dating of Epidendrosaurus
> >>>: is FAR from settled, that it is under dispute...
> >>>: right?
>
> >>>A completely accurate statement that only a drooling
> >>>psycho like you would ever dispute. So, naturally,
> >>>you disputed it:
>
> >>>| Funny how everything that disagrees with your
> >>>| idiot ravings is somehow, on some planet far
> >>>| from ours, "in dispute", according to you.
>
> >>>So, yeah, I demonstrated how ill you are with this:
>
> >>>http://www.paleomag.net/members/rixiangzhu/HYY-GRL-2004.pdf
>
> >>>I guess that's why you're ranting & raving instead
> >>>of addressing facts... whatever it takes to
> >>>distract from reality.
>
> >> Is that why you keep avoiding this?:
> >>http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/14446af3dd77dfa4
>
> >Dude, I know you're completely insane & obsessed with inventing
> >fault with me, but you might have noticed that I directly addressed
> >this just a few postings up... and in the article that you were
> >responding to just now.
>
> No, you didn't. Inhttp://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/14446af3dd77dfa4I
>
> Hence, you didn't "address" much of anything. If you want to address
> facts, address what's inhttp://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/14446af3dd77dfa4and
> try and use your own words, rather than URLs, the contents of which
> you obviously don't understand.
>
> >Like I've been telling you: Seek help.
>
> I don't need help to point out that you don't know what you're talking
> about.
JTEM's posts are about JTEM. He has nothing useful to add - he's just
working
out his self-esteem problems.
Reminds me of Sharon...
gregwrld
JTEM
> JTEM's posts are about JTEM.
It seems that your posts are about me, numbnuts. But I
can see how you might've got that one confused.
Gee, and you guys wonder why you couldn't talk a
creationist out of a burning house? Sheesh!
"Augrey's" posts, on the other hand, are all about some
mental illness... his need to find fault in me, to the point
where he'll even invent it himself.
JTEM
> No, you didn't.
Yo; Spazz! Here it is again:
http://www.paleomag.net/members/rixiangzhu/HYY-GRL-2004.pdf
There. It's disputed. Your position is based entirely on the
nonsense that nobody disputes the dating, and clearly the
dating is disputed. It's never not been disputed. If you read it
this time, you'll see it was written in 2004, and it cites papers
from 2000 and 2002.
Get over it. Seek help. Thanks in advance.
gregwrld
> gregwrld <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote:
> > JTEM's posts are about JTEM.
>
> It seems that your posts are about me, numbnuts.
Consider it a compliment you don't deserve.
But I
> can see how you might've got that one confused.
>
> Gee, and you guys wonder why you couldn't talk a
> creationist out of a burning house? Sheesh!
>
> "Augrey's" posts, on the other hand, are all about some
> mental illness... his need to find fault in me, to the point
> where he'll even invent it himself.
You are such a lightweight.
Augray
<1176873096....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> :
>> No, you didn't.
>
>Yo; Spazz! Here it is again:
>
>http://www.paleomag.net/members/rixiangzhu/HYY-GRL-2004.pdf
Unless the writers have invented time travel, it can't address a paper
published *two* *years* *later*. Explain what's wrong with my summary
of http://fossilinsects.net/pdfs/Gao_Ren_2006.pdf at
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/14446af3dd77dfa4
>There. It's disputed.
Based on errors and mistakes.
>Your position is based entirely on the
>nonsense that nobody disputes the dating,
No. It's obvious that you haven't been paying attention. When are you
going to take a look at
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/14446af3dd77dfa4 ?
>and clearly the
>dating is disputed. It's never not been disputed. If you read it
>this time, you'll see it was written in 2004, and it cites papers
>from 2000 and 2002.
And http://fossilinsects.net/pdfs/Gao_Ren_2006.pdf cites the paper you
champion. Guess which came later.
>Get over it. Seek help. Thanks in advance.
You seem to think that telling me to "seek help" makes the evidence
magically disappear.
Augray
<1176872873.6...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
No need to invent things when your faults are so easily demonstrated.
JTEM
> You are such a lightweight.
You're second post all about me! Well, maybe it's
time we started talking about a JTEM fan club...
"Augrey" gets to be President though. You can be
Madame Secretary.
JTEM
> Unless the writers have invented time travel, it can't
> address a paper published *two* *years* *later*.
Hey, psycho breath; what did you think "Disputed"
meant?
Oh, I forgot, you? Think?
Different people employing different methods determined
different ages, all resulting in (now get this) a "Dispute."
Augray
<1176955922....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> :
>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:50:26 -0400, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
><530c23hv3lc7p6tl5...@4ax.com> :
>> Unless the writers have invented time travel, it can't
>> address a paper published *two* *years* *later*.
>
>Hey, psycho breath; what did you think "Disputed"
>meant?
If you meant "disputed", then why did you write "directly addressed"?
Or are you still having problems with English?
>Oh, I forgot, you? Think?
More than you, obviously.
>Different people employing different methods determined
>different ages, all resulting in (now get this) a "Dispute."
And in the paper you cite the methods are flawed, as was explained
four months ago. And you have yet to reply to that. Your entire
argument is that someone, somewhere, disagrees, but you obviously
don't care about the basis for the disagreement. I mean, with that
attitude I'm surprised that you don't dispute evolution, because,
like, golly gee, creationists dispute it. If you want to talk about
methodologies, that's fine, but simply posting a link again and again
to a paper you haven't read doesn't "directly address" anything.
JTEM
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >Oh, I forgot, you? Think?
>
> More than you, obviously.
So how much longer do you intend to argue against the
frigging obvious? That, the dating is disputed?
And what's it like having so much emotionally invested
in your fantasy?
Augray
<1177010522.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> :
>>>Oh, I forgot, you? Think?
>>
>> More than you, obviously.
>
>So how much longer do you intend to argue against the
>frigging obvious? That, the dating is disputed?
Do you really think that I'm arguing that everyone is in agreement???
>And what's it like having so much emotionally invested
>in your fantasy?
Explain where the fantasy is in
http://fossilinsects.net/pdfs/Gao_Ren_2006.pdf
Kent Paul Dolan
>> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why, you monkey raping psycho!
> Nope. That WAS NOT in the article. It was in
> the previous article, one you had ALREADY
> responded to.
Once again you lie, once again you ignore that
the archival quality of Usenet makes it trivially
easy for anyone to confirm that you are lying:
The message ID to which I responded, as a
check of the last entry on the references line
of my article
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0d8d362bbd7e95e9?dmode=source
will allow anyone to confirm, was:
1176446819.0...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
which Google Groups advanced article search confirms
for anyone who bothers to check is this article by you:
1176446819.0...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
which anyone can confirm contains this line by you:
"Why, you monkey raping psycho!"
as new text in that article. That you repeat your idiocy is not
the same thing as pretending that you weren't being an idiot.
That you continually try to lie about what you've said,
despite that absolutely anyone can confirm that you are a
liar, only goes to show that your ability to learn from your
mistakes is below that of a planarian worm exploring a "T"
maze, suggesting, to all, that the reason for that failure is
that your IQ is also worm-like but more low.
Quantum valeat.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> So, yeah, I demonstrated how ill you are with this:
> http://www.paleomag.net/members/rixiangzhu/HYY-GRL-2004.pdf
Which, of course, as it has been overtaken by events
and refuted by more careful measurement, in work
already multiply cited for your reading pleasure, only
goes to show that you are clueless about how the
process of science works. That cluelessness of yours
is not a surprise to anyone, of course, I'm sure it is
the subject of bar-room laughter in the Oort cloud..
xanthian.
JTEM
> Do you really think that I'm arguing that everyone is
> in agreement???
You have posted countless articles based on the notion
that the dating is undisputed.
JTEM
> Once again you lie,
So now we add "lie" to the already lengthy list of words
you don't know the meaning to...
JTEM
> Which, of course,
*Yawn*
I know you're an idiot, but are you seriously pretending
that the "fossil bed is older" crowd ever held a different
position?
Earle Jones
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
*
Of course electrochemical dating is disputed.
So is the spherical earth. So is the atomic theory.
Everything is disputed.
It is up to the disputer to bring forth some evidence that
reinforces his dispute.
If you have a claim that the well-established methods of
electrochemical dating are inaccurate, then bring them forth -- show
them here.
In the meanwhile, read "The Age of the Earth", by Brent Dalrymple,
which is a very readable and succinct account of the current methods
of dating old objects.
If you find errors in that text, please show them here.
earle
*
JTEM
Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> So is the spherical earth.
Wow. If you have to stoop that low, why even bother?
Kent Paul Dolan
>> Once again you lie,
Which part of pointing out in your own words that you were
lying when you claimed not to have just said something
despite that the Usenet archive shows that you had done
just that, do you find difficult to swallow, pathological liar
that you are?
As usual you trim away everything that refutes your point,
and go right on in your invincible ignorance maintaining the
same position you maintained before being presented with
irrefutable facts, facts confirmable by any reader, showing
you to be wrong.
You are deeply mentally ill, which just makes you all the
more fun as a kicking toy, you being completely incapable
of restraining yourself from the behavior that makes you
such an easy target.
Quantum valeat.
xanthian.
JTEM
> Which part of [....]
Apparently I have to bring you up to date, again.
You were pretending that the dating wasn't under
dispute. I demonstrated that it was. You immediately
leapt off that subject, trying desperately to distract
from the fact that you had been shown to be an
idiot... again.
Now do you want to accept reality, or do you want
to continue barking worthless accusations?
Augray
<1177128158....@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
>
> Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> So is the spherical earth.
>
>Wow. If you have to stoop that low, why even bother?
It's very tempting to nominate this for a Chez Watt, but you'd have to
know who was posting it to see the irony.
Augray
<1177093522.2...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> :
I never said that. You're *extremely* confused, but that's nothing
new.
JTEM
> It's very tempting to nominate this for a Chez Watt, but
> you'd have to know who was posting it to see the irony.
Could you go back to arguing for what you're arguing against?
I like it when you do that.
JTEM
> >You have posted countless articles based on the notion
> >that the dating is undisputed.
>
> I never said that.
Oh, okay. So who is that psycho posting under your name,
the one that burned so much bandwidth claiming that the
dating isn't disputed?
Not that I care.
Kent Paul Dolan
>> Which part of [....]
> Apparently I have to bring you up to date, again.
Rewriting history won't do it for you, though, the
item under dispute was whether I was respond
directly to your just having said "Monkey raping
psycho." Where does the rest of this drivel you put
in to replace that discussion come from? You must
have a bad case of keyboard diarrhea again.
> You were pretending that the dating wasn't under
> dispute.
The dating is not under dispute. The dating _was_
under dispute. Better measurement techniques
resolved that dispute. The dating is now undisputed
by all but a few keyboard diarrhea-prone kooks.
> I demonstrated that it was.
No, you merely demonstrated that you are an idiot,
unable to comprehend the forward progress which
science, every once in a while despite the
obstructionism of keyboard-diarrhea-prone kooks like
you, does manage to accomplish.
> You immediately leapt off that subject,
That would be you, suddenly contending that "monkey
raping psycho" was something I'd dragged forward in
time from a long past posting of yours.
> trying desperately to distract from the fact that
> you had been shown to be an idiot... again.
Well, no, that would be you, again, past, now,
future, forever and ever amen.
> Now do you want to accept reality, or do you want
> to continue barking worthless accusations?
I accept the reality that you have your multicolored
baboon's ass firmly presented in the air for kicking
again, and take this opportunity to kick you one
more time as you've gone out of your way to present
yourself as a total fool and pathological liar, one
more time for all to admire.
Vae victis, JTEM, vae victis.
xanthian.
Augray
<1177196070.9...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>On 20 Apr 2007 11:25:22 -0700, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>><1177093522.2...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>>> Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you really think that I'm arguing that everyone is
>>>> in agreement???
>>>
>>>You have posted countless articles based on the notion
>>>that the dating is undisputed.
>>
>> I never said that.
>
>Oh, okay. So who is that psycho posting under your name,
>the one that burned so much bandwidth claiming that the
>dating isn't disputed?
There are no such messages. But maybe you can point to some, and prove
me wrong.
>Not that I care.
That's why you've been arguing about it for five months.
Augray
<1177195983.7...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> :
>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>On 20 Apr 2007 21:02:38 -0700, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>><1177128158....@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>>>
>>> Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So is the spherical earth.
>>>
>>>Wow. If you have to stoop that low, why even bother?
>>
>>It's very tempting to nominate this for a Chez Watt, but you'd have to
>>know who was posting it to see the irony.
>
>Could you go back to arguing for what you're arguing against?
That never happens.
>I like it when you do that.
Since I don't do that, this may explain why you don't like me.
JTEM
> >Could you go back to arguing for what you're arguing against?
>
> That never happens.
Not only did it happen, but you got your Harshman brain to
help you!
JTEM
> There are no such messages.
In which case, I'm not replying to a message now.
JTEM
> Rewriting history [---burp---]
You're mocking yourself at this point.
Augray
<1177298379.6...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> :
> Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:31:33 -0400, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
><8fim23pmbaid3pj1e...@4ax.com> :
>
>>On 21 Apr 2007 15:53:03 -0700, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>><1177195983.7...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>>>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 20 Apr 2007 21:02:38 -0700, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>><1177128158....@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So is the spherical earth.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wow. If you have to stoop that low, why even bother?
>>>>
>>>>It's very tempting to nominate this for a Chez Watt, but you'd have to
>>>>know who was posting it to see the irony.
>>>
>>>Could you go back to arguing for what you're arguing against?
>>
>> That never happens.
>
>Not only did it happen, but you got your Harshman brain to
>help you!
Only in your fantasies. Isn't it time that you looked at the evidence?
Augray
<1177298429.3...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> :
>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>On 21 Apr 2007 15:54:30 -0700, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>><1177196070.9...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>>>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 20 Apr 2007 11:25:22 -0700, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>><1177093522.2...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> :
>>>>
>>>>> Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you really think that I'm arguing that everyone is
>>>>>> in agreement???
>>>>>
>>>>>You have posted countless articles based on the notion
>>>>>that the dating is undisputed.
>>>>
>>>> I never said that.
>>>
>>>Oh, okay. So who is that psycho posting under your name,
>>>the one that burned so much bandwidth claiming that the
>>>dating isn't disputed?
>>
>> There are no such messages.
>
>In which case, I'm not replying to a message now.
Which is even *more* evidence that you're confused.
>>But maybe you can point to some, and prove
>>me wrong.
Well?