I sympathize … it must be really irritating being told by the kiddies that you’re not paying attention.
I simply asked Ichy a question. Now run along and troll for someone else to argue with.
You asked him several questions; try to be more precise when you’re trying to insult. Here are the questions in order from your post 124:
What year was that written?Question three was answered in Ichy’s post 104, the very one to which you were replying. Here it is again, this time in bold:Before he said this?:
Out of curiosity, what "out-of-context" quote did wbmstr24 "mine?"
wrong answer, because it had some of these characteristics doesnt make it a former or partial dino of any kind, there are birds today who have teeth too, big deal....Try reading the article, son, then get back to us when you have some actual knowledge to base your wild guesses on.
we all have heard feduccia, even he knows it was a bird, and never was anything other than a bird....
Gosh, really? Let's see what Feduccia actually said about Archaeopteryx, instead of what the out-of-context quote-mining creationists try to make it sound like he said, shall we?
"The creature thus memorialized [in fossil form] was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian. The forearms that once held feathers ended in three fingers with sharp, recurved claws. The Archaeopteryx is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two groups of living organisms -- what has come to be called a "missing link", a Rosetta stone of evolution."Here, have a look at the actual page:
-- from Feduccia's "Origin and Evolution of Birds", Chapter 1 page 1.And if *that's* not enough, Feduccia repeats his position on page 29 as well:Gosh, now when Feduccia has made his opinion that Archaeopteryx is "perfectly intermediate" between reptiles and modern birds so clear, why would you want to grossly misrepresent his actual position to try to pretend that he supports your "it's just a plain bird, it's not an intermediate, nothing to see here, move along" BS? Do you think that dishonestly using Feduccia as a sock puppet for your own errors is going to make you look somehow more competent or honest? If so, you're sadly mistaken. Furthermore, you've given Feduccia grounds to sue you, because falsely putting such a grossly incompetent claim in his mouth could damage his professional reputation. Would you like to retract your horse crap now?
104 posted on 07/27/2006 5:02:49 PM EDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
Junior then answered your other questions in post 132 (again, with answers now in bold so you have a better chance of spotting them:
What year was that written?Before he said this?:
Now it appears you are engaging in quote mining, too. But we've come to expect that level of dishonesty from you over the years. Talk Origins covers just this quote on their quote-mining page:“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur,” Feduccia says. “But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
Allan Feduccia, Professor of biology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms”, Science, Vol. 259, 5 February 1993, p. 764
Picking and choosing authorities
In advertisements for movies, it is usually taken for granted that the studios only quote positive reviews. This kind of Madison Avenue tactic is not a legitimate means of establishing the nature of reality. One cannot just pick the expert whose opinion is convenient for the point one is trying to make while ignoring credible expert opinion to the contrary. This is especially the case when the quoted authority is in the minority among his fellow experts. There might be a very good reason why the authority's views are in the minority. If a writer argues by hand-picking only the experts convenient to him, then that writer has committed the "argument from authority" fallacy. Antievolutionists do this routinely.
- Alan Feduccia who opposes the idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs and instead argues that birds are descended from non-dinosaur archosaurs (a taxon that includes dinosaurs) is often quoted by evolution deniers. Feduccia is a qualified scientist and should not be just dismissed, but his views are in an extreme minority within the scientific community. It is simply bad reasoning for the evolution deniers to use Feduccia's writing disagreeing with conventional ideas of bird evolution while ignoring the many experts that disagree with him.
"Is Archaeopteryx a 'missing link'?"1 quotes Feduccia on Archaeopteryx:
Was Archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur? Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."
Notice the author is citing Feduccia's conclusion, and not his evidence. There is no mention that that his opinion is a minority opinion. Feduccia's peers in the field of bird evolution are "authorities" too. In short this creationist is saying that Feduccia is an authority and that he says that birds are not descended from dinosaurs, therefore birds are not descended from dinosaurs. It is a classic "argument from authority." It is also very inconsistent. Feduccia also says that evolution occurs, so if this argument is to be followed to its logical conclusion, this creationist must accept the evolution of birds from non-birds! One could also cite many more authorities that say birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs. This is why one should not pick and choose authorities. If Feduccia does turn out to be correct and his views become established within the scientific community, then the evolution deniers will probably become fond of quoting what Kevin Padian and other proponents of birds being descended from dinosaurs had to say about Feduccia's views.
So, you see, Feduccia is not disputing evolution at all, or even that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form. What he does dispute is whether Archaeopteryx descended from therapod dinosaurs (the prevailing paleontological view) or whether it descended from archosaurs (Feduccia's view).
Have no fear. You'll conveniently forget all about this by the next thread and will, once again, post the quote in the firm belief it bolsters your arguments.
132 posted on 07/28/2006 6:56:26 AM EDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
You’ve never responded to the facts presented to you. Your questions have been answered, sometimes before you actually asked them. All you’ve done in response is whine about personal insults and supply an abundant crop of them yourself.