BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Musket
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 10:44 AM

You get the contributions, then hand them to the organ grinder.

Simples.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Actual...
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 10:35 AM

this beauty from pete illustrates perfectly the utter non-science nonsense that he spouts:

"because only very tiny changes over millennia occurred, a definite transitional alludes us"


If there are not tiny changes, pete calls this a gap.

If there are tiny changes, a "definite transitional" is missing.


An intelligent discussion simply cannot be had with you on this subject pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 09:40 AM

I will leave it to anyone looking in to determine if there was any constructive contribution from the above.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 03:15 AM

My dear pete. Creation.com is by definition foul language if it perpetuates myth, attempts to hold back how we discover the universe around us and promotes brain washing children into seeing delusional fantasy on a plane inhabited by reality.

Although it is nice to see you acknowledge that you have an organ grinder to hand the coins to.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 03:10 AM

"...and only because YOU want there to be a common ancestor!"

No, pete, the the evidence points towards a common ancestor. Show me the evidence for a common designer.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 06:16 PM

Creation.com often publishes responses and answers to critics

Creation.com publishes no answers, pete. They publish scripture and polemics.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 06:14 PM

"The invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections."

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 05:53 PM

thankyou, stu, for a more reasoned response than the other posters since my question. I note that you admit that the story is still baffling, so I assume that also means that it is far from cut and dried. interesting that teeth may appear in new born chicks, especially as I recently read that horner and larrson have for a few years been trying to engineer a chickosaurus.
best I can make out, you are saying that because only very tiny changes over millennia occurred, a definite transitional alludes us, and the story is put together by placing whatever beasts and birds seem closest together to form some kind of development. sorry if that seems too simplistic, but that's how it appears, and gould himself had admitted the missing branches of the evolutionary tree. I suppose there may be more info and data since he conceded that.
I should note that picking a bird and yelling dinosaur is not science either.....as I believe was done with archaeopterex for some time.

musket....Creation.com often publishes responses and answers to critics....as long as they are not full of foul language.
I recommend you do tackle them with your objections.

shimrod...and only because YOU want there to be a common ancestor!.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 03:21 PM

Picking a dinosaur and yelling "bird!" is not science.


Ah, but then, Stui, pete has repeatedly admitted that he knows nothing of or about science.

You're never gonna teach this particular ignorant pig to sing.....

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 08:59 AM

Ok, briefly:

The closest non-avian relatives of the birds are the Deinonychosaurs, which together comprise a clade called Paraves. This group includes many small meat-eating dinosaurs including the famous Velicraptor and the four-winged Microraptor. Also included are all birds, from both extant and extinct lineages including basal birds such as Archaeopteryx and Anchiornis. All of these were feathered, and in fact all coelurosaurs were probably feathered as large, feathered tyrannosaurs are also known.

The features that birds have were not acquired in a single evolutionary jump, but accrued incrementally over hundreds of millions of years of evolution; the way birds breathe, long considered unique, is very similar to the crocodile respiratory system for example, so both of these archosaurs shared a common ancestor. We also know feathers aren't restricted to birds, and neither did flight arise in birds either as many other dinosaurs could fly, Microraptor for example (although this wasn't powered flight, more refined gliding). Early birds had teeth (chicks are occasionally born with teeth today) and clawed wings - as many modern birds do; they retain claws on their first digit - look closely at your chicken wings before eating and sure enough there's a tiny claw visible.

This means the exact point where the most basal bird appears isn't clear; the transition is subtle and even Archaeopteryx has been punted out of birds and then back in based on the possibility that advanced deinonychosaurs and the carnivorous early birds might actually belong with together and not with basal birds, who might have been herbivorous. In some respects, this wonderfully complex puzzle becomes more baffling as we find more fossils. There is no clear line between avian and non-avian dinosaurs because all these fossils are transitional and are of very closely related taxa.

Be assured, this story is a long way from being over. The origin of birds has long been a question that fascinates palaeontologists and this research and debate will continue. There are issues with the completeness of the record, and the fact that Lagerstätten can create a sampling bias, and of course we are finding new fossils all the time. We understand that birds are derived maniraptorian dinosaurs, but we're still not sure when or where this occurred.

Not bad work considering we're only been at it for 150-odd years. Huxley would have loved to have been involved with this research, and would rightly be pleased that he has been vindicated by the work of countless palaeontologists and other scientists.

Soapy Sam might not be so pleased. Creationists are still trying to skew the science to accommodate a simplistic and rather dull narrative, despite essentially not changing their arguments for over a century whilst science moves on. Picking a dinosaur and yelling "bird!" is not science.

The spirit of Darwin's bulldog lives on.*


*boom-ta!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 03:41 AM

You may have a point "their", Musket!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 03:12 AM

Wouldn't it be more fruitful to find the weird websites pete cuts and pastes from and rant at that instead?

At least you'd be shouting at the organ grinder. (Noting that the monkey seems stubborn when it comes to evolving.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 03:03 AM

"that their might be some common design features is , imo, evidence of a common designer rather that a common ancestry."

Only because you want "their" to be a common designer, pete!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,actual...
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 11:33 PM

Pete
I respect your faith.
But when you talk science (not my faith), you are ignorant, and insulting.
I know you do not intend to be so disrespectful, but you are.
Jesus would not approve. Promise.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 11:31 AM

thanks stu, hope your project goes well. I presume you might have named some of many coelusaurians mentioned in a wiki article I have just read [wiki is far from creationist, shimrod!] . said article certainly assumes that modern birds belong to the same grouping from some details that may partly correspond to these, including what might suggest feathers on dinos.
actual...it is not just a case of whether one or two gaps are claimed, but whether any particular claimed transitional can be demonstrated to be so when subjected to scrutiny.
and although sometimes it may be evolutionists that uncover weaknesses in the argument supporting these, creationists will obviously be more inclined to expose flaws. and of course, if all scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads they welcome such scrutiny. but should an example be provided that creationists have not been able to expose any faulty reasoning.....then you have scored a [minor] victory !.
that their might be some common design features is , imo, evidence of a common designer rather that a common ancestry.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,actual...
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 10:03 AM

pete,

Here is your homework if you have any interest at all in science.
See if you can find 20 distinct (as in separate or independent) skeletal characteristics shared by modern birds and coelurosaurians.

Supplying you with transitional fossils plays into the YEC trap - for you folks, every transitional fossil simply creates two more gaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 09:49 AM

In the meantime, pete, you could do some research yourself. Perhaps you could even bring yourself to refer to something other than creationist websites (?)

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 05:43 AM

Hi Pete, like Rob I'm a tad snowed under to answer straight away as a deadline for abstract submission is looming, and I've left it until the last minute - as usual!

So once I've sorted all that out I'll get back to you. Apologies!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 07:06 PM

Stu....just noticed that you said there were lots of transitional fossils for early birds, if I read correctly, and I assume you mean from dinosaurs. Perhaps you might name some of these examples please? Of course, if you are rather talking about variation in birds, it would seem rather that it is just that,...ie variation within a kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Apr 14 - 05:55 PM

Ok rob. Hope you soon get the appropriate volume of work .

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 07:53 PM

Not letting it drop, Pete....but still snowed under with work. It hit at just the wrong time and hasn't let up yet. Will respond within 48 hours.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 08:34 AM

To start with it makes no sense and fails to set out any structured argument. In the absence of a structured argument logical discussion is impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 08:09 AM

Are you still snowed under with work, rob?      It is certainly good to give a considered, thought out response, though initially you had wanted to declare there and then what was so desperately wrong with the song.    If you want to let it drop........that's fine by me!.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 09:15 AM

The notion that birds are dinosaurs (which I've completely accepted for many years) is so romantic. When I chuck some grub out for them I always greet them with "Mornin', dinosaurs!"

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 08:16 AM

"last I read , stu, dino to bird evolution was not cut and dried, even among evolutionists. and though you give an ardent affirmation ,even you admit to guessing, given the definite differences."

1) ANOTHER misrepresentation of my argument. The differences between deciding the dividing line will be subtle, as both morphotypes of bird/dinsosaur grade into one another. I am guessing as I don't work directly on these particular dinosaurs, but do know people who do and try to keep up with progress. In fact, the differences are so small that to all intents and purposes they don't really exist, and scientists pursue the studies for taxonomic reasons (which is fair enough).

2) Those not agreeing with an dinosaurian origin of birds are very much in the minority and tend to be ornithologists. I saw one of these chaps speak last year and his argument was as full of holes as yours are, and there was no real point in arguing. He turned up and talked though, so good on him. I suggest if you want to debate these points, read up more.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:24 AM

"and of course, you cant doubt Darwin ... can you ?"

Of course you can doubt Darwin! And especially if you've got evidence which casts doubt on the Darwinian model of evolution. But, on the other hand, if you doubt Darwin on the basis of unsubstantiated opinion or religious grounds, no reputable scientist would give a toss about your doubts!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 06:09 PM

What Greg said.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:55 PM

How would you expect a three-year-old to reply? And why are you attempting to have a rational discussion with a toddler?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:51 PM

"other than the constantly changing details"

Jaysus, you just refuse to listen don't you.
That is exactly how science works. If the details are not constantly changing, *that* makes it faith. This is precisely what makes science different from religion.

Do you see the lunacy of your logic? You say that science is changing the details [behaving exactly the way science is intended], but creationism does not, therefore "Darwinism" (science) is no different from religion. Are you blinkers?

In science we are always willing, in fact *trying* to change the details.

You argue using words and ideas that are completely foreign to science.

It is a bit like me challenging you to answer this:

brsdfgouyn glkout vrrgbmnnwa yyrqsalhmytn?

Well? How do you reply?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:10 PM

and of course, you cant doubt Darwin [other than the constantly changing details] can you ?
I remind you again, shimrod, that the song only relates the story of the disagreements and makes obviously true comment on that. it does not even venture into biblical territory, though I think that record more trustworthy
last I read , stu, dino to bird evolution was not cut and dried, even among evolutionists. and though you give an ardent affirmation ,even you admit to guessing, given the definite differences.
guest!..creation is historical presupposition as is evolutionism. however, the latter violates established operational science considerably more than creationism.
ps, be nice to have an inkling who we are talking to.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:03 PM

it still doesn't make your preferred biblical chronology right!

Of course it does! You can't doubt the Word Of God, can you?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 01:35 PM

Just had a look through the stuff related to 'Mungo Man' on Wikipedia etc. And, yes, the range of dates that have been attributed to the specimens are very wide and don't always agree with each other. But this doesn't 'prove' anything, pete - it just means that, in this particular example, there are some anomalies which need to be resolved (I'm sure that there are examples where there are good agreements on dates). And remember, if the science is all wrong, wrong, wrong (which I very much doubt) it still doesn't make your preferred biblical chronology right!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 07:26 AM

"dinos with feathers?....do we KNOW that yet? and if some did, it would hardly prove birds arose from them."

The argument that birds are dinosaurs has been cut and dried for years. It's now a case of discovering where the divide lies, although it's going to be really, really subtle and will be based on (I'm guessing here) a combination of molecular and anatomical features. Although creationists bleat on about the lack of transitional fossils the truth is that in the case of early birds we have lots of transitional fossils, some with significant sample sizes. It's even possible that feathers are not restricted to dinosaurs but might have originated earlier in the archosauria; pterosaurs have structures very similar to the simplest known feathers. Flight didn't originate in birds either as other dinosaurs could fly.

Were you about in the Cretaceous you'd be hard pressed to tell whether you were looking at a bird or non-avian dinosaur, as they would be indistinguishable; bear in mind modern birds are only one branch of the whole clade, the others being extinct.

This is a very exciting area of research, but consider this: the dinosaurs never died out and they live alongside us to this day. The sparrow outside you back door is one of 10,000 species of living, breathing dinosaurs that continue to thrive to this very day.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 01:11 AM

"repeatable experiments can not be performed on what is in the past"

So creation science can never beoperational science

Whatever the hell that is...

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 06:30 PM

well, actual, I would presume that autopsy comes under operational science. I would presume that a clear cause of death and even how long ago the death was, is usually agreed on. but if you get one doctor saying it occurred last week, and another 10 yr ago, and a third that it happened 100 yr ago.....well, I suppose you could compare it to origins science, as evidenced by the mungo man disagreements
and I don't need to understand much science to see that evolutionists are not reading the same evidence the same way.

stu,- most of what is historical is attested by written records , though doubtless archaeology helps a lot too.
dinos with feathers?....do we KNOW that yet? and if some did, it would hardly prove birds arose from them.

hope work evens out to be more manageable, rob.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 08 Apr 14 - 12:30 AM

I've not forgotten that I need to get back to this. Just had an enormous avalanche of work in and been doing 18 hour days since last week.

Will get back to it as soon as I've got on top of this lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 06:14 PM

"[M]y scientific understanding is pretty limited, ..."

Well, pete, now THERE'S your problem.......

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 05:57 PM

'Guest' at 01:02PM was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 01:17 PM

"repeatable experiments can not be performed on what is in the past"

Which is why it is impossible to determine cause of death from an autopsy I suppose...

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 01:09 PM

"stu, you know full well that repeatable experiments can not be performed on what is in the past, so my distinction still stands."

This is a strawman, and NOT what I posted and wrong Peter, as you know from our previous discussions; but what the heck. Observations can be repeated, as can any number of tests on rocks, fossils, anatomy, DNA and whatever else counts as evidence when using the scientific method for rational inquiry when studying, amongst other things, past life and deep time.

The idea that anything from the past cannot be experimented on or observed is utterly ridiculous; how the hell do we know where the bluestones in Stonehenge come from? How do we know Boudicca razed St Albans to the ground? How can we be sure Aston Villa won the league in 1896? How do we know dinosaurs had feathers?

I'm open to all possibilities Pete, but there has to be evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 01:02 PM

"I very much doubt that open minds are the domain of evolutionists, certainly not in most posting here. of course they have to adapt constantly [and then claim it as a merit] but the foundations of their religious position is non negotiable, ..."

I'm not sure that I understand all of this, pete. And I certainly don't understand the bit about "evolutionists" (which I assume means evolutionary biologists) having a "religious position" (with "foundations"). Real science, you see, does not have any sort of religious foundation or agenda (leaving aside the religious convictions of individual scientists).

And being willing to revise conclusions in the light of new evidence is most definitely not a weakness - it often happens in many scientific fields. But, then, as you admitted in a previous post:

"[M]y scientific understanding is pretty limited, ..."

How can you criticise something that you don't really understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 10:32 AM

stu, you know full well that repeatable experiments can not be performed on what is in the past, so my distinction still stands. and I have indicated the difference in the song, and elucidated in my last post.
shimrod, I very much doubt that open minds are the domain of evolutionists, certainly not in most posting here. of course they have to adapt constantly [and then claim it as a merit] but the foundations of their religious position is non negotiable, albeit lip service protestations to the contrary.
if you re read last post you will see I said "scientists of creation persuasion" and if by your shorthand "creation scientists" = no such thing assertion mean these , then you are clearly blinkered to reality. you can not remove earned doctorates because you disagree with them. or to put it another way, a scientists position on origins does neither endorse , or detract his expertise

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 04:59 PM

science as espoused by deep time proponents can rest easy with unexplained conundrums ,that principle, ought to apply equally to scientists of creation persuasion also!"

1. There are no scientists of "creation persuasion", pete. Contradiction in terms.

2. The remainder of your statement is simply gibberish, told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 03:59 PM

"You might also like to consider....or maybe not.....that if science as espoused by deep time proponents can rest easy with unexplained conundrums ,that principle, ought to apply equally to scientists of creation persuasion also!"

But, pete, I very much doubt that scientists "rest easy" with unexplained conundrums - but work hard to resolve them (and sometimes, of course, fail). Nevertheless, the existence of such conundrums 'proves' nothing - it's a complex world out there and it can be very difficult to unravel. And for the umpteenth time, there is no such thing as a "creation scientist". You cannot be a scientist from a starting position of absolute certainty - a real scientist must have an open mind!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Stu in the electron cloud
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 03:50 PM

Pete, you know full well that palaeontology, geology and biology science is falsifiable and testable. Your central premise is flawed.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 03:11 PM

Granted, shimrod, that my scientific understanding is pretty limited, but what I do understand, and you appear to deny, is that origins science and operational science, which is the science that seeks cures, designs machines or sends craft into space etc are not exactly the same thing. The latter, I believe is able to establish facts pretty securely because it operates by the scientific method ie observable,testable,repeatable experiments.   The fact that historical science has disagreements and often large variations of age interpretations only goes to demonstrate the difference.                         Now,I make no apology for trusting the bible record, anymore than you do for believing deep time and godless origin of everything. As I often say, that is also a faith position. However, though I am a biblical creationist, this song only goes as far as demonstrating that no matter how precise dating machinery is ,the evolutionary interpretations of the data are far from as clear cut as Darwinists would like joe public to believe.                      You might also like to consider....or maybe not.....that if science as espoused by deep time proponents can rest easy with unexplained conundrums ,that principle, ought to apply equally to scientists of creation persuasion also!                                              How much more to me!    But thank you for restraining your scorn, and thus facilitate useful discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 09:41 AM

"I note that he's not often able to answer my questions - which leads me to believe that his faith is uncritical and unquestioning."

You'd better believe it Shim. The only answers he can ever give you, are based on the crap he swallows whole from creationist websites.

He studiously avoids reading anything which might force him to think.

For Pete it's a case of "Don't confuse me with facts! I already know what I believe."

My one regret is that there will be no opportunity for any of us to say "We told you so!"

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 09:05 AM

Thanks Richard.

Note that I'm trying very hard (and sometimes failing) to be respectful to pete and his religion - hence the capital 'G'. All I've been trying to do is, mainly, to question his extreme religious views. I note that he's not often able to answer my questions - which leads me to believe that his faith is uncritical and unquestioning.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 07:50 AM

"I,m concerned for you and others when you stand before god"

Don't be. I've a whole slew of questions for god and look forward to having an in-depth discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 05:54 AM

That's a very good post, Shimrod. The only change I'd make would be a small "g" for "god".