Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Commentary: Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy
85 views
Skip to first unread message
jspa...@linuxquestions.net
Sep 25, 2012, 12:16:06 PM9/25/12
to
From the article:
-----------------------------------
Creationism is concerned with dinosaurs only as marketing tools to sell their interpretation of a vengeful God. But if we pursue the never-ending questions in our interrogation of the fossil record, then we may actually begin to understand the simultaneously beautiful and brutal history of life on our planet. After all, the fact of evolution means that we once shared a common ancestor with the dinosaurs more than 305 million years ago, and that our own mammalian progenitors snuffled around in the undergrowth during the majority of the dinosaurian reign. If we can be humble enough to approach the fossilized dinosaur remains with questions, rather than prepackaged dogma, we’ll be better able to understand why we’re here at all.
------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/creationists_and_dinosaurs_answers_in_genesis_teams_with_dissident_scientists_to_deny_feathered_dino_fossil_record.single.html or http://tinyurl.com/9gu3f4o
J. Spaceman
-----------------------------------
Creationism is concerned with dinosaurs only as marketing tools to sell their interpretation of a vengeful God. But if we pursue the never-ending questions in our interrogation of the fossil record, then we may actually begin to understand the simultaneously beautiful and brutal history of life on our planet. After all, the fact of evolution means that we once shared a common ancestor with the dinosaurs more than 305 million years ago, and that our own mammalian progenitors snuffled around in the undergrowth during the majority of the dinosaurian reign. If we can be humble enough to approach the fossilized dinosaur remains with questions, rather than prepackaged dogma, we’ll be better able to understand why we’re here at all.
------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/creationists_and_dinosaurs_answers_in_genesis_teams_with_dissident_scientists_to_deny_feathered_dino_fossil_record.single.html or http://tinyurl.com/9gu3f4o
J. Spaceman
Eugene Willow
Sep 25, 2012, 12:45:55 PM9/25/12
to
On 25 Sep, 16:20, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
> From the article:
> -----------------------------------
> Creationism is concerned with dinosaurs only as marketing tools to sell their interpretation of a vengeful God. But if we pursue the never-ending questions in our interrogation of the fossil record, then we may actually begin to understand the simultaneously beautiful and brutal history of life on our planet. After all, the fact of evolution means that we once shared a common ancestor with the dinosaurs more than 305 million years ago, and that our own mammalian progenitors snuffled around in the undergrowth during the majority of the dinosaurian reign. If we can be humble enough to approach the fossilized dinosaur remains with questions, rather than prepackaged dogma, we’ll be better able to understand why we’re here at all.
> ------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/crea...orhttp://tinyurl.com/9gu3f4o
> From the article:
> -----------------------------------
> Creationism is concerned with dinosaurs only as marketing tools to sell their interpretation of a vengeful God. But if we pursue the never-ending questions in our interrogation of the fossil record, then we may actually begin to understand the simultaneously beautiful and brutal history of life on our planet. After all, the fact of evolution means that we once shared a common ancestor with the dinosaurs more than 305 million years ago, and that our own mammalian progenitors snuffled around in the undergrowth during the majority of the dinosaurian reign. If we can be humble enough to approach the fossilized dinosaur remains with questions, rather than prepackaged dogma, we’ll be better able to understand why we’re here at all.
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> J. Spaceman
Actually, feathered dinosaurs only present an evidence for Intelligent
Design.
prawnster
Sep 25, 2012, 1:00:43 PM9/25/12
to
On Sep 25, 9:20 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
> From the article:
> -----------------------------------
> Creationism is concerned with dinosaurs only as marketing tools to sell their interpretation of a vengeful God. But if we pursue the never-ending questions in our interrogation of the fossil record, then we may actually begin to understand the simultaneously beautiful and brutal history of life on our planet. <<
Money quote:
> From the article:
> -----------------------------------
> Creationism is concerned with dinosaurs only as marketing tools to sell their interpretation of a vengeful God. But if we pursue the never-ending questions in our interrogation of the fossil record, then we may actually begin to understand the simultaneously beautiful and brutal history of life on our planet. <<
"Interrogation of the fossil record [sic]..."
Question begged. The entire piece is based on the unsupported
assertion that a bunch of critters buried suddenly is a record of
anything other than suddenly buried critters.
Utterly worthless.
Paul J Gans
Sep 25, 2012, 2:23:27 PM9/25/12
to
jillery
Sep 25, 2012, 4:35:59 PM9/25/12
to
John Harshman
Sep 25, 2012, 5:02:17 PM9/25/12
to
persistent and quite boring sort at that.
Kalkidas
Sep 25, 2012, 6:15:23 PM9/25/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:16:06 -0700 (PDT), jspa...@linuxquestions.net
wrote:
What it should have said:
Neo-Darwinism is concerned with dinosaurs only as marketing tools to
sell their interpretation of the fossils. But if we pursue the paucity
and superficiality of the fossil record, then we may actually begin to
understand the simultaneously attractive and mistaken theory of life on
our planet. After all, the hypothesis of neo-Darwinism means that we
proud of these fanciful speculations to approach the fossilized dinosaur
wrote:
Neo-Darwinism is concerned with dinosaurs only as marketing tools to
sell their interpretation of the fossils. But if we pursue the paucity
and superficiality of the fossil record, then we may actually begin to
understand the simultaneously attractive and mistaken theory of life on
our planet. After all, the hypothesis of neo-Darwinism means that we
once shared a common ancestor with the dinosaurs more than 305 million
years ago, and that our own mammalian progenitors snuffled around in the
undergrowth during the majority of the dinosaurian reign. If we are too
years ago, and that our own mammalian progenitors snuffled around in the
proud of these fanciful speculations to approach the fossilized dinosaur
jillery
Sep 25, 2012, 11:16:40 PM9/25/12
to
Astero...@yahoo.com
Sep 26, 2012, 3:04:29 AM9/26/12
to
Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive, Piltdown Man, and more.
Ron O
Sep 26, 2012, 7:15:02 AM9/26/12
to
On Sep 26, 2:05 am, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive, Piltdown Man, and more.
These types must be born again and again. When did this type of
> Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive, Piltdown Man, and more.
argument ever amount to anything? Glen Rose? Pieces of the ark? How
many pieces of the cross have been sold to the rubes? What do the
existence of frauds or misrepresentations mean? Can you be
consistent? Fraud does happen, but science has real Neandertal teeth
and by now we may have extracted Neandertal DNA from such teeth. We
have extracted Neandertal DNA from bones. Why is Neandertal DNA
significantly different from modern human DNA? Almost troll like, but
likely too stupid to be a troll.
Ron Okimoto
TomS
Sep 26, 2012, 7:57:52 AM9/26/12
to
"On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:15:02 -0700 (PDT), in article
<fa4dfb08-26bb-4596...@k13g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
stated..."
How did the discoverers of the Neanderthal manage to insert DNA into
their fossils? The type specimen of Neanderthal was discovered in 1856,
before the publication of "On the Origin of Species". How many different
Neanderthal remains have been independently discovered? Were they all
part of a conspiracy stretching over more than 100 years?
BTW, this is really off-topic and I fear that I will get a lot of flak
for this, but concerning the relics of the "True Cross" there may be a
certain amount of dubious representation on *all* sides. Check
Wikipedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Cross#Dispersal_of_relics_of_the_True_Cross>
--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)
<fa4dfb08-26bb-4596...@k13g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
stated..."
their fossils? The type specimen of Neanderthal was discovered in 1856,
before the publication of "On the Origin of Species". How many different
Neanderthal remains have been independently discovered? Were they all
part of a conspiracy stretching over more than 100 years?
BTW, this is really off-topic and I fear that I will get a lot of flak
for this, but concerning the relics of the "True Cross" there may be a
certain amount of dubious representation on *all* sides. Check
Wikipedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Cross#Dispersal_of_relics_of_the_True_Cross>
--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)
Mitchell Coffey
Sep 26, 2012, 11:46:29 AM9/26/12
to
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:05:05 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive, Piltdown Man, and more.
Why is it people like you always claim there are many such examples, but you only mention the same 1 to four, most of them old cases, and misrepresent all at that?
> Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive, Piltdown Man, and more.
By the way, Neanderthal bones identified as such long before DNA was known turn out to have Neanderthal DNA in them. They're the real deal.
Mitchell Coffey
chris thompson
Sep 26, 2012, 11:58:21 AM9/26/12
to
On Sep 26, 11:50�am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
wrote:
back with Nebraska Man, you know. And after that,
there's...there's...uh, lemme get back to you. I'm really busy right
now, the sun's in my eyes, I tripped on an unseen imaginary deceased
turtle (you have to have RPG'd using Arm's Law to get that one), and
uhh, you know....
Chris
wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:05:05 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> > Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive, Piltdown Man, and more.
>
> Why is it people like you always claim there are many such examples, but you only mention the same 1 to four, most of them old cases, and misrepresent all at that?
>
Mitchell, Mitchell, Mitchell....shame on you! They always have a fall
> > Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive, Piltdown Man, and more.
>
> Why is it people like you always claim there are many such examples, but you only mention the same 1 to four, most of them old cases, and misrepresent all at that?
>
back with Nebraska Man, you know. And after that,
there's...there's...uh, lemme get back to you. I'm really busy right
now, the sun's in my eyes, I tripped on an unseen imaginary deceased
turtle (you have to have RPG'd using Arm's Law to get that one), and
uhh, you know....
Chris
Slow Vehicle
Sep 26, 2012, 12:51:05 PM9/26/12
to
On Sep 26, 1:05�am, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive, Piltdown Man, and more.
Paluxy?
> Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive, Piltdown Man, and more.
"Homo testis deluviium"?
all the Arks?
Slow Vehicle
Sep 26, 2012, 12:52:37 PM9/26/12
to
On Sep 26, 10:00�am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
> Mitchell, Mitchell, Mitchell....shame on you! They always have a fall
> back with Nebraska Man, you know. And after that,
> there's...there's...uh, lemme get back to you. I'm really busy right
> now, the sun's in my eyes, I tripped on an unseen imaginary deceased
> turtle (you have to have RPG'd using Arm's Law to get that one), and
> uhh, you know....
> Chris
<snip>
"Turtles all the way down", eh?
wrote:
<snip>
> Mitchell, Mitchell, Mitchell....shame on you! They always have a fall
> back with Nebraska Man, you know. And after that,
> there's...there's...uh, lemme get back to you. I'm really busy right
> now, the sun's in my eyes, I tripped on an unseen imaginary deceased
> turtle (you have to have RPG'd using Arm's Law to get that one), and
> uhh, you know....
> Chris
"Turtles all the way down", eh?
chris thompson
Sep 26, 2012, 1:21:22 PM9/26/12
to
Eugene Willow
Sep 26, 2012, 1:55:50 PM9/26/12
to
On 25 Sep, 20:35, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:45:55 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:45:55 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>
> <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 25 Sep, 16:20, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
> >> From the article:
> >> -----------------------------------
> >> Creationism is concerned with dinosaurs only as marketing tools to sell their interpretation of a vengeful God. But if we pursue the never-ending questions in our interrogation of the fossil record, then we may actually begin to understand the simultaneously beautiful and brutal history of life on our planet. After all, the fact of evolution means that we once shared a common ancestor with the dinosaurs more than 305 million years ago, and that our own mammalian progenitors snuffled around in the undergrowth during the majority of the dinosaurian reign. If we can be humble enough to approach the fossilized dinosaur remains with questions, rather than prepackaged dogma, we�ll be better able to understand why we�re here at all.
> >On 25 Sep, 16:20, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
> >> From the article:
> >> -----------------------------------
> >> ------------------------------------
>
> >> Read it athttp://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/crea...
>
>
> >> Read it athttp://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/crea...
>
> >> J. Spaceman
>
> >Actually, feathered dinosaurs only present an evidence for Intelligent
> >Design.
>
> Care to elaborate?
Because feathers were found on both birds,dinosaurs and angels, this
>
> >Actually, feathered dinosaurs only present an evidence for Intelligent
> >Design.
>
> Care to elaborate?
presents evidence for copying/plagiarising design - or "code reuse".
jillery
Sep 26, 2012, 6:17:31 PM9/26/12
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:55:50 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
<willo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 25 Sep, 20:35, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:45:55 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>>
>> <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 25 Sep, 16:20, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>> >> From the article:
>> >> -----------------------------------
>> >> Creationism is concerned with dinosaurs only as marketing tools to sell their interpretation of a vengeful God. But if we pursue the never-ending questions in our interrogation of the fossil record, then we may actually begin to understand the simultaneously beautiful and brutal history of life on our planet. After all, the fact of evolution means that we once shared a common ancestor with the dinosaurs more than 305 million years ago, and that our own mammalian progenitors snuffled around in the undergrowth during the majority of the dinosaurian reign. If we can be humble enough to approach the fossilized dinosaur remains with questions, rather than prepackaged dogma, we�ll be better able to understand why we�re here at all.
<willo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 25 Sep, 20:35, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:45:55 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>>
>> <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 25 Sep, 16:20, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>> >> From the article:
>> >> -----------------------------------
>> >> ------------------------------------
>>
>> >> Read it athttp://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/crea...
>>
>> >> J. Spaceman
>>
>> >Actually, feathered dinosaurs only present an evidence for Intelligent
>> >Design.
>>
>> Care to elaborate?
>
>Because feathers were found on both birds,dinosaurs and angels, this
>presents evidence for copying/plagiarising design - or "code reuse".
I've never seen feathers on angels. That's partly because to the best
>>
>> >> Read it athttp://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/crea...
>>
>> >> J. Spaceman
>>
>> >Actually, feathered dinosaurs only present an evidence for Intelligent
>> >Design.
>>
>> Care to elaborate?
>
>Because feathers were found on both birds,dinosaurs and angels, this
>presents evidence for copying/plagiarising design - or "code reuse".
of my knowledge I've never seen angels.
Eugene Willow
Sep 30, 2012, 9:58:17 AM9/30/12
to
On 26 Sep, 22:20, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:55:50 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:55:50 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 25 Sep, 20:35, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:45:55 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>
> >> <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On 25 Sep, 16:20, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
> >> >> From the article:
> >> >> -----------------------------------
> >> >> Creationism is concerned with dinosaurs only as marketing tools to sell their interpretation of a vengeful God. But if we pursue the never-ending questions in our interrogation of the fossil record, then we may actually begin to understand the simultaneously beautiful and brutal history of life on our planet. After all, the fact of evolution means that we once shared a common ancestor with the dinosaurs more than 305 million years ago, and that our own mammalian progenitors snuffled around in the undergrowth during the majority of the dinosaurian reign. If we can be humble enough to approach the fossilized dinosaur remains with questions, rather than prepackaged dogma, we ll be better able to understand why we re here at all.
> >> >> ------------------------------------
>
> >> >> Read it athttp://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/crea...
>
> >> >> J. Spaceman
>
> >> >Actually, feathered dinosaurs only present an evidence for Intelligent
> >> >Design.
>
> >> Care to elaborate?
>
> >Because feathers were found on both birds,dinosaurs and angels, this
> >presents evidence for copying/plagiarising design - or "code reuse".
>
> I've never seen feathers on angels. That's partly because to the best
> of my knowledge I've never seen angels.
I've never seen feathers on dinosaurs. That's partly because to the
> >On 25 Sep, 20:35, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:45:55 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>
> >> <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On 25 Sep, 16:20, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
> >> >> From the article:
> >> >> -----------------------------------
> >> >> Creationism is concerned with dinosaurs only as marketing tools to sell their interpretation of a vengeful God. But if we pursue the never-ending questions in our interrogation of the fossil record, then we may actually begin to understand the simultaneously beautiful and brutal history of life on our planet. After all, the fact of evolution means that we once shared a common ancestor with the dinosaurs more than 305 million years ago, and that our own mammalian progenitors snuffled around in the undergrowth during the majority of the dinosaurian reign. If we can be humble enough to approach the fossilized dinosaur remains with questions, rather than prepackaged dogma, we ll be better able to understand why we re here at all.
> >> >> ------------------------------------
>
> >> >> Read it athttp://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/crea...
>
> >> >> J. Spaceman
>
> >> >Actually, feathered dinosaurs only present an evidence for Intelligent
> >> >Design.
>
> >> Care to elaborate?
>
> >Because feathers were found on both birds,dinosaurs and angels, this
> >presents evidence for copying/plagiarising design - or "code reuse".
>
> I've never seen feathers on angels. That's partly because to the best
> of my knowledge I've never seen angels.
best of my knowledge I've never seen dinosaurs.
Ron O
Sep 30, 2012, 1:50:22 PM9/30/12
to
On Sep 26, 7:00 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:15:02 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <fa4dfb08-26bb-4596-9444-24e444ae1...@k13g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
> "On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:15:02 -0700 (PDT), in article
> stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 26, 2:05 am, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor,
> >>Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive, Piltdown Man, and more.
>
> >These types must be born again and again. When did this type of
> >argument ever amount to anything? Glen Rose? Pieces of the ark? How
> >many pieces of the cross have been sold to the rubes? What do the
> >existence of frauds or misrepresentations mean? Can you be
> >consistent? Fraud does happen, but science has real Neandertal teeth
> >and by now we may have extracted Neandertal DNA from such teeth. We
> >have extracted Neandertal DNA from bones. Why is Neandertal DNA
> >significantly different from modern human DNA? Almost troll like, but
> >likely too stupid to be a troll.
>
> >Ron Okimoto
>
> How did the discoverers of the Neanderthal manage to insert DNA into
> their fossils? The type specimen of Neanderthal was discovered in 1856,
> before the publication of "On the Origin of Species". How many different
> Neanderthal remains have been independently discovered? Were they all
> part of a conspiracy stretching over more than 100 years?
>
> BTW, this is really off-topic and I fear that I will get a lot of flak
> for this, but concerning the relics of the "True Cross" there may be a
> certain amount of dubious representation on *all* sides. Check
> Wikipedia
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Cross#Dispersal_of_relics_of_the_Tr...>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 26, 2:05 am, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor,
> >>Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive, Piltdown Man, and more.
>
> >These types must be born again and again. When did this type of
> >argument ever amount to anything? Glen Rose? Pieces of the ark? How
> >many pieces of the cross have been sold to the rubes? What do the
> >existence of frauds or misrepresentations mean? Can you be
> >consistent? Fraud does happen, but science has real Neandertal teeth
> >and by now we may have extracted Neandertal DNA from such teeth. We
> >have extracted Neandertal DNA from bones. Why is Neandertal DNA
> >significantly different from modern human DNA? Almost troll like, but
> >likely too stupid to be a troll.
>
> >Ron Okimoto
>
> How did the discoverers of the Neanderthal manage to insert DNA into
> their fossils? The type specimen of Neanderthal was discovered in 1856,
> before the publication of "On the Origin of Species". How many different
> Neanderthal remains have been independently discovered? Were they all
> part of a conspiracy stretching over more than 100 years?
>
> BTW, this is really off-topic and I fear that I will get a lot of flak
> for this, but concerning the relics of the "True Cross" there may be a
> certain amount of dubious representation on *all* sides. Check
> Wikipedia
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
> Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
> (1999)
You don't have to count the pieces that might be genuine, but all the
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
> Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
> (1999)
pieces that many pilgrims brought home. My guess is that some
fragments are still being sold today.
Ron Okimoto
jillery
Sep 30, 2012, 5:35:37 PM9/30/12
to
isn't even knowledge.
John Harshman
Sep 30, 2012, 7:57:05 PM9/30/12
to
birds, feathered dinosaurs I've seen personally include Sinosauropteryx,
Protarchaeopteryx, and Caudipteryx. I've seen photos of many others too,
and I'm fairly certain those photos weren't faked. Did that help?
pnyikos
Oct 1, 2012, 9:23:51 PM10/1/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Sep 26, 12:55 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive,PiltdownMan, and more.
>
> Paluxy?
>
> "Homo testis deluviium"?
I wouldn't call this one a fake. More a case of mistaken identity,
> Paluxy?
>
> "Homo testis deluviium"?
like "Nebraska Man" and *Palorchestes*. See my reply to Chris
Thompson for details on the latter.
> all the Arks?
Did anyone actually fake an ark?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Oct 1, 2012, 9:21:21 PM10/1/12
to nyi...@math.sc.edu
On Sep 26, 12:00 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
that just about every paleontologist was fooled, which is not the case
-- but then, I don't think this misrepresentation is unique to
creationists.
> Mitchell, Mitchell, Mitchell....shame on you! They always have a fall
> back withNebraskaMan, you know. And after that,
more examples, but almost all of them are content to rely on the
readings of others. [Not that creationists have a monopoly on that
kind of "parasitism."]
My own favorite "Nebraska Man" analogue is the marsupial
*Palorchestes.* For decades it was classified as a kangaroo, of
record height. You can see it listed in Romer's _Vertebrate
Paleontology_, and his _Man and the Vertebrates_ has a photo of a
mural in the Field Museum of Chicago showing several of them, with an
estimate of ten feet for their heights, and with several *Diprotodon*
in the background.
Books for youngsters, including Scheele's _The First Mammals_, also
had it as a giant kangaroo, IIRC up to 12 feet in height. Another
such book whose title and author I've forgotten featured a picture of
it along with one of what was then thought to be a close second in
height, the short-faced kangaroo *Procoptodon*, now recognized as the
record holder.
As more bones came to light, it was realized that *Palorchestes* was
nothing like a kangaroo. Reproductions now have it looking like a
cross between a tapir and a ground sloth.
By the way, I've added sci.bio.paleontology to the newsgroups. I'm
always hungry for good material for that newsgroup.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
>
> - Show quoted text -
wrote:
> On Sep 26, 11:50 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:05:05 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> > > Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive,PiltdownMan, and more.
> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:05:05 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>
> > Why is it people like you always claim there are many such examples, but you only mention the same 1 to four, most of them old cases, and misrepresent all at that?
I haven't seen any misrepresentations of Piltdown Man, unless it is
> > Why is it people like you always claim there are many such examples, but you only mention the same 1 to four, most of them old cases, and misrepresent all at that?
that just about every paleontologist was fooled, which is not the case
-- but then, I don't think this misrepresentation is unique to
creationists.
> Mitchell, Mitchell, Mitchell....shame on you! They always have a fall
> there's...there's...uh, lemme get back to you. I'm really busy right
> now, the sun's in my eyes, I tripped on an unseen imaginary deceased
> turtle (you have to have RPG'd using Arm's Law to get that one), and
> uhh, you know....
>
> Chris
If creationists were as intersted in paleontology as I am, you'd have
> now, the sun's in my eyes, I tripped on an unseen imaginary deceased
> turtle (you have to have RPG'd using Arm's Law to get that one), and
> uhh, you know....
>
> Chris
more examples, but almost all of them are content to rely on the
readings of others. [Not that creationists have a monopoly on that
kind of "parasitism."]
My own favorite "Nebraska Man" analogue is the marsupial
*Palorchestes.* For decades it was classified as a kangaroo, of
record height. You can see it listed in Romer's _Vertebrate
Paleontology_, and his _Man and the Vertebrates_ has a photo of a
mural in the Field Museum of Chicago showing several of them, with an
estimate of ten feet for their heights, and with several *Diprotodon*
in the background.
Books for youngsters, including Scheele's _The First Mammals_, also
had it as a giant kangaroo, IIRC up to 12 feet in height. Another
such book whose title and author I've forgotten featured a picture of
it along with one of what was then thought to be a close second in
height, the short-faced kangaroo *Procoptodon*, now recognized as the
record holder.
As more bones came to light, it was realized that *Palorchestes* was
nothing like a kangaroo. Reproductions now have it looking like a
cross between a tapir and a ground sloth.
By the way, I've added sci.bio.paleontology to the newsgroups. I'm
always hungry for good material for that newsgroup.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
>
>
> > By the way, Neanderthal bones identified as such long before DNA was known turn out to have Neanderthal DNA in them. They're the real deal.
>
> > Mitchell Coffey- Hide quoted text -
>
> > By the way, Neanderthal bones identified as such long before DNA was known turn out to have Neanderthal DNA in them. They're the real deal.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Harshman
Oct 2, 2012, 12:17:47 AM10/2/12
to
On 10/1/12 6:21 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Sep 26, 12:00 pm, chris thompson<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sep 26, 11:50 am, Mitchell Coffey<mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:05:05 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>>>> Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive,PiltdownMan, and more.
>>
>>> Why is it people like you always claim there are many such examples, but you only mention the same 1 to four, most of them old cases, and misrepresent all at that?
>
> I haven't seen any misrepresentations of Piltdown Man, unless it is
> that just about every paleontologist was fooled, which is not the case
> -- but then, I don't think this misrepresentation is unique to
> creationists.
>
>> Mitchell, Mitchell, Mitchell....shame on you! They always have a fall
>> back withNebraskaMan, you know. And after that,
>> there's...there's...uh, lemme get back to you. I'm really busy right
>> now, the sun's in my eyes, I tripped on an unseen imaginary deceased
>> turtle (you have to have RPG'd using Arm's Law to get that one), and
>> uhh, you know....
>>
>> Chris
>
> If creationists were as intersted in paleontology as I am, you'd have
> more examples,
Examples of what, exactly? Fakes or misinterpretations? Let's get that
> On Sep 26, 12:00 pm, chris thompson<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sep 26, 11:50 am, Mitchell Coffey<mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:05:05 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>>>> Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive,PiltdownMan, and more.
>>
>>> Why is it people like you always claim there are many such examples, but you only mention the same 1 to four, most of them old cases, and misrepresent all at that?
>
> I haven't seen any misrepresentations of Piltdown Man, unless it is
> that just about every paleontologist was fooled, which is not the case
> -- but then, I don't think this misrepresentation is unique to
> creationists.
>
>> Mitchell, Mitchell, Mitchell....shame on you! They always have a fall
>> back withNebraskaMan, you know. And after that,
>> there's...there's...uh, lemme get back to you. I'm really busy right
>> now, the sun's in my eyes, I tripped on an unseen imaginary deceased
>> turtle (you have to have RPG'd using Arm's Law to get that one), and
>> uhh, you know....
>>
>> Chris
>
> If creationists were as intersted in paleontology as I am, you'd have
> more examples,
clear immediately.
pnyikos
Oct 2, 2012, 2:22:10 PM10/2/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 2, 12:19�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 10/1/12 6:21 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 12:00 pm, chris thompson<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Sep 26, 11:50 am, Mitchell Coffey<mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:05:05 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> >>>> Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive,PiltdownMan, and more.
>
> >>> Why is it people like you always claim there are many such examples, but you only mention the same 1 to four, most of them old cases, and misrepresent all at that?
>
> > I haven't seen any misrepresentations of Piltdown Man, unless it is
> > that just about every paleontologist was fooled, which is not the case
> > -- but then, I don't think this misrepresentation is unique to
> > creationists.
>
> >> Mitchell, Mitchell, Mitchell....shame on you! They always have a fall
> >> back withNebraskaMan, you know. And after that,
> >> there's...there's...uh, lemme get back to you. I'm really busy right
> >> now, the sun's in my eyes, I tripped on an unseen imaginary deceased
> >> turtle (you have to have RPG'd using Arm's Law to get that one), and
> >> uhh, you know....
>
> >> Chris
>
> > If creationists were as interested in paleontology as I am, you'd have
> On 10/1/12 6:21 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 12:00 pm, chris thompson<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Sep 26, 11:50 am, Mitchell Coffey<mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:05:05 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> >>>> Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive,PiltdownMan, and more.
>
> >>> Why is it people like you always claim there are many such examples, but you only mention the same 1 to four, most of them old cases, and misrepresent all at that?
>
> > I haven't seen any misrepresentations of Piltdown Man, unless it is
> > that just about every paleontologist was fooled, which is not the case
> > -- but then, I don't think this misrepresentation is unique to
> > creationists.
>
> >> Mitchell, Mitchell, Mitchell....shame on you! They always have a fall
> >> back withNebraskaMan, you know. And after that,
> >> there's...there's...uh, lemme get back to you. I'm really busy right
> >> now, the sun's in my eyes, I tripped on an unseen imaginary deceased
> >> turtle (you have to have RPG'd using Arm's Law to get that one), and
> >> uhh, you know....
>
> >> Chris
>
> > more examples,
>
> Examples of what, exactly? Fakes or misinterpretations? Let's get that
> clear immediately.
Good point. I wasn't thinking carefully about why Chris Thompson
>
> Examples of what, exactly? Fakes or misinterpretations? Let's get that
> clear immediately.
listed "Nebraska Man" when I wrote the above. In a later post, which
I did not crosspost here to s.b.p., I listed "Nebraska Man" and
*Palorchestes* as cases of mistaken identity, not outright fakes.
Ditto the "poor sinner drowned in the Great Flood."
Peter Nyikos
eridanus
Oct 2, 2012, 3:55:22 PM10/2/12
to
El miércoles, 26 de septiembre de 2012 08:05:05 UTC+1, (desconocido) escribió:
> Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive, Piltdown Man, and more.
there had been more fake gods than fake scientific artifacts.
> Given the number of fakes out forth I find it questionable. Archeraptor, Neanderthals teeth out of occlusion to look primitive, Piltdown Man, and more.
Eridanus
eridanus
Oct 7, 2012, 5:37:30 AM10/7/12
to
El miércoles, 26 de septiembre de 2012 23:20:03 UTC+1, jillery escribió:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:55:50 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>
> <willo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 25 Sep, 20:35, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:45:55 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>
> >>
>
> >> <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On 25 Sep, 16:20, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>
> >> >> From the article:
>
> >> >> -----------------------------------
>
> >> >> Creationism is concerned with dinosaurs only as marketing tools to sell their interpretation of a vengeful God. But if we pursue the never-ending questions in our interrogation of the fossil record, then we may actually begin to understand the simultaneously beautiful and brutal history of life on our planet. After all, the fact of evolution means that we once shared a common ancestor with the dinosaurs more than 305 million years ago, and that our own mammalian progenitors snuffled around in the undergrowth during the majority of the dinosaurian reign. If we can be humble enough to approach the fossilized dinosaur remains with questions, rather than prepackaged dogma, we�ll be better able to understand why we�re here at all.
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:55:50 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>
> <willo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 25 Sep, 20:35, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:45:55 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>
> >>
>
> >> <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On 25 Sep, 16:20, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>
> >> >> From the article:
>
> >> >> -----------------------------------
>
>
> >> >> ------------------------------------
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Read it athttp://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/crea...
>
> >>
>
> >> >> J. Spaceman
>
> >>
>
> >> >Actually, feathered dinosaurs only present an evidence for Intelligent
>
> >> >Design.
>
> >>
>
> >> Care to elaborate?
>
> >
>
> >Because feathers were found on both birds,dinosaurs and angels, this
>
> >presents evidence for copying/plagiarising design - or "code reuse".
>
>
>
>
>
> I've never seen feathers on angels. That's partly because to the best
>
> of my knowledge I've never seen angels.
in Rome existed a relic that is labeled "a feather of Angel saint Gabriel"
> >> >> ------------------------------------
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Read it athttp://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/crea...
>
> >>
>
> >> >> J. Spaceman
>
> >>
>
> >> >Actually, feathered dinosaurs only present an evidence for Intelligent
>
> >> >Design.
>
> >>
>
> >> Care to elaborate?
>
> >
>
> >Because feathers were found on both birds,dinosaurs and angels, this
>
> >presents evidence for copying/plagiarising design - or "code reuse".
>
>
>
>
>
> I've never seen feathers on angels. That's partly because to the best
>
> of my knowledge I've never seen angels.
and a flask was labeled, "contains a sight of the Holy Spirit". Well, I am not
sure of the translation for it was written in Latin.
Eridanus
eridanus
Oct 7, 2012, 5:42:37 AM10/7/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
El martes, 2 de octubre de 2012 02:24:46 UTC+1, pnyikos escribi�:
but I had seen pictures of the Ark in mount Ararat in Turkey.
it is the net. Google for it.
Anyone has a relic a piece of the wood from Noe's Ark?
Eridanus
it is the net. Google for it.
Anyone has a relic a piece of the wood from Noe's Ark?
Eridanus
Walter Bushell
Oct 16, 2012, 8:56:14 AM10/16/12
to
In article
<0df41056-247c-43af...@kg10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Not to mention my special pricing on eggs laid by the Holy Spirit as a
dove.
An object will acquire spiritual powers when it is venerated.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
<0df41056-247c-43af...@kg10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
dove.
An object will acquire spiritual powers when it is venerated.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
0 new messages