Posted on 06/13/2007 8:09:23 AM PDT by EndWelfareToday
A very good point. I guess when I read that this bird had been found in China it reminded me of the Pekin Man which as you know was an alleged "missing-link" in man's evolution. I thought it would be fun to see what people thought might have "evolved" from this newest "find."
Don't get me wrong folks. I love anthropology. In fact a good friend of my had the Krzyzanowskisaurus named after him. It too was a bird like creature (Much smaller mind you.) I just don't buy into the whole junk science religion or it's evolutionary hooey.
Sorry. As I said I am not interested in arguing. If I knew that I was going to upset anyone I would not have posted this article. I find Junk Science and all it's facets (Evolution, Environmentalism, etc.) to be absolutely hilarious. I was trying to put a smile on people's faces.
I hope you understand.
I am not upset in the least. I am only disagreeing with your idea that Pekin Man was a hoax.
I spent six years in grad school, half of it in evolution and closely related fields, so I have actually looked at the data.
But if you don't want to argue I'll just wish you a pleasant day. Bye for now.
Wow. I’ve rarely seen projection on such a massive scale.
” I love anthropology.’
You love it so much, you don’t even know what it means. LOL
From the Creation Museum maybe? ;)
More here, with nice illustrations, if you are interested...
The Peking Bird?
I don't? Hmmmm? Why would you assume that I don't know what it means?
Because you said...
“Don’t get me wrong folks. I love anthropology. In fact a good friend of my had the Krzyzanowskisaurus named after him. It too was a bird like creature (Much smaller mind you.)”
What does anthropology [study of human beings at all times and in all places] have to do with anything following “in fact” ?
Then again maybe not.
I don't always stop to sort out what occasionally turns out to be a hodgepodge of rambling thoughts. If they confused you... well. Too bad. ;-)
You couldn't have done a better job in illustrating your lack of understanding as to the nature and requirements of scientific theories. It's absolutely contradictory to refer to a "theory" with no supporting evidence. No scientific idea gets anywhere near to the point of being properly called a "theory" without extensive and/or specific evidence in its support.
Yeah. I know. Everyone in the world that cherishes Scientific fact over theories are idiots and beneath you elitists. Sorry! Maybe you will have mercy on those of us less evolved than you eh?!
It is not a matter of selecting one over the other. Both facts and theories are required in order to do science.
I think Heinlein may have expressed this best:
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts.
Expanded Universe: The New Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein, 1980, pp. 480-481
Well, yeah, actually. "Cherishing" fact over theory is a bit idiotic. So is "cherishing" theory over fact. Either is at least as idiotic as criticizing a car mechanic for (supposedly) "cherishing" wrenches over screwdrivers, or vice versa. Or maybe hand tools over engine hoists would be a better example.
In any case, whether wrenches vs screwdrivers or hand tools vs engine hoists, both are necessary to rebuild an engine. By the same token both facts and theories are necessary to do science. They're just different kinds of things is all. Facts (and laws) are descriptive, whereas theories are explanatory.
The job of a scientific theory is to explain facts. (And the job in turn of scientific facts is to test theories.) Furthermore the requirements of a scientific theory are such that the explanations provided must be non gratuitous (not ad hoc and based on the consequences of the theory's model or mechanisms) and that a given theory must explain at least some facts that are not accounted for by previous or would-be-competing theories. So theoretical explanations must be non-gratuitous, specific, and in at least some cases unique. Therefore the facts explained by a theory (at least those not accounted for equally well by other theories) must also constitute evidence for the theory.
This is why your previous reference to evolution as a "theory," but one for which there is "NO evidence," is so nonsensical. It's equivalent to saying evolution is a theory which explains nothing. But a theory that explains nothing is not a theory.
The problem here is obvious. You think facts are "good" and theories are "bad". Again this is just like (and just as idiotic as) saying that wrenches are "good" and screw drivers are "bad" wrt to the needs of mechanic. Or like saying that apples are "good" and oranges are "bad," and etc.
Coyoteman:
Both facts and theories are required in order to do science
Stultis:
both facts and theories are necessary to do science
...great minds...
All the claims and deliberate misstatements by the creationists will not change the way science works; the scientific method has been narrowed down to a pretty workable and efficient way of getting results in the real world. And it produces verifiable results!
They can have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.
I'll stick to science.
That's wildly false. Granted the original "Peking Man" (Chinese Homo erectus from Zhoukoudian) fossils never left China, and were lost with the baggage of the U.S. Marines evacuating ahead of the Japanese, but they certainly were studied extensively in laboratories. Davidson Black, and following his death in 1934 Franz Weidenreich, made highly accurate casts and sent them to scientists and institutions around the world. There were also photographs, measurements, detailed descriptions, and even X-rays. All of this record material was brought back to the United States by Weidenreich who left China ahead of the Marines in 1941. For instance here is one of the x-rays (and an ordinary photograph) of Skull XII:
Here's a better image of the same skull:
What's more further remains of Homo erectus have been excavated, in situ, at the original "Peking Man" site since the war, and we still have those fossils.
Indeed peices of a skull were found in 1966 that matched perfectly with casts of material found by Davidson Black in 1934. Here's a picture and description of that skull from chineseprehistory.org:
Skull V from Zhoukoudian has an interesting history. Portions of this skull-cap were first found in the 1930s. Along with the rest of the human fossil collection from Zhoukoudian these fragments were lost during World War II. Excellent molds of all the human specimens were made, however, and primary casts are still available at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing and the American Museum in New York. In 1966 the frontal bone and a portion of the occipital bone of Skull 5 were found during renewed excavations at Zhoukoudian. They fit perfectly with casts of the original pieces found in 1934 and 1936, allowing for the reconstruction of a nearly complete skull-cap. Skull 5 is thought to come from younger deposits at Zhoukoudian and to show certain relatively advanced features compared to other crania from the site. In overall character, however, it does not differ significantly from previously known specimens of "Peking Man."
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Creationist Arguments: Peking Man (talkorigins)
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_peking.html
Thanks to the InternetArchive we can still access the extensive information and resources at the recently defunct "ChinesePrehistory.org":
web.archive.org/web/20060428134041/http://www.chineseprehistory.org/
Looks more like a dinosaur-like bird to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
