Creationism reels back once again, or new four-winged dinosaur fossil found

[Zero]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
A bizarre new fossil found in China? Fake!

maybe. Its likley taht it is, but certainly theres nothign wrong with organism having four wings... Evolution does come up with all sorts of variety in order to try what works and doesnt work. I would be surprised if evolution didnt create 4 winged birds at one point in earth's history...

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Because it seems impossible for something to have 4 wings and no legs. Maybe I am wrong, I just heard this thing on the news. Besides you sould not take everything you hear on the news at face value.

You mean like dissident's "News says Man decapitated and lives" thread?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Because it seems impossible for something to have 4 wings and no legs. Maybe I am wrong, I just heard this thing on the news. Besides you sould not take everything you hear on the news at face value.

Keep in mind the "wings" aren't exactly like bird wings. They are more akin to feathered limbs. In a sense, they are like flying squirrels.

[Drake Tungsten]

Its likley taht it is, but certainly theres nothign wrong with organism having four wings...

My doubts about the fossil have nothing to do with the number of wings. I doubt the fossil because it's from China; this wouldn't be the first time that a fake proto-bird fossil came out of the Middle Kingdom...

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
or will it make you go fundie nutball and start accusing scientists of conspiracies?

Bory, the problem is that you don't have to be a fundie nutball to start seeing, if not a conspiracy per se, certainly an "agenda" being pushed by evolutionists. All one needs to do is look at their record (e.g piltdown man, nebraska man, etc) to realize that truth is not necessarily a prequisite for the accomplishment of some evolutionists agenda. Therefore, a certain agenda, or even a full blown conspiracy, in these matters is very easily discenible.

That's not to say the so-called "creationists" are any better. In fact, they are quite a few orders of magnitude worse. But the problem is that with both sides offering their own respective agendas, science be damned, no sort of intellectually honest dialectic can be opened on this subject in the foreseeable future. So I am not any sort of fundie nutball, I will happily change my tune the day compelling scientific evidence to do so is offered, and not the militant agenda of a few wackos.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Keep in mind the "wings" aren't exactly like bird wings. They are more akin to feathered limbs. In a sense, they are like flying squirrels.

Acually when I saw the picture that is what I though of. But even if I did not have so many doubts I would wait untill more people can examine it before you go arround stating that it existed as fact and then find out it is a fake, which is a possible.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Calc II


You mean like dissident's "News says Man decapitated and lives" thread?

Yeah like that.
Too bad that I never got to see that thread since I spend most of my time on the on topic forums.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by monkspider
Bory, the problem is that you don't have to be a fundie nutball to start seeing, if not a conspiracy per se, certainly an "agenda" being pushed by evolutionists. All one needs to do is look at their record (e.g piltdown man, nebraska man, etc) to realize that truth is not necessarily a prequisite for the accomplishment of some evolutionists agenda. Therefore, a certain agenda, or even a full blown conspiracy, in these matters is very easily discenible.

First of all, the sinister overtones of Nebraska Man's story are greatly exaggerated by Creationists:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

Second, these are actually proof of there being no overall agenda among scientists. Piltdown man was debunked by scientists, after all. It was through the skepticism of paleontologists that people began to realize it was a hoax.

Neither of these remotely indicate there is some sort of conspiratorial "agenda" being foisted by scientists. Quite the contrary--they prove that science, unlike Creationism, undergoes peer review.

But the problem is that with both sides offering their own respective agendas, science be damned, no sort of intellectually honest dialectic can be opened on this subject in the foreseeable future.

Except scientists aren't offering an agenda, they're offering evidence that is peer-reviewed. Considering the sheer number of scientists out there and the competition for attention, the fact that the vast majority do agree on the basic mechanics of evolution as being indisputable fact is very significant. You'd have to to believe there is a massive, Freemason-like conspiracy.

So I am not any sort of fundie wacko, I will happily change my tune the day compelling scientific evidence to do so is offered, and not the militant agenda of a few wackos.

The problem is there is already oodles of compelling evidence--evidence that has proven evolution as fact many times over. Refusing to accept that evidence because it doesn't jive with one's world view is what makes one a fundie nutball.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
. Piltdown man was debunked by scientists, after all. It was through the skepticism of paleontologists that people began to realize it was a hoax.

This is a good point for the most part, but despite there being a certain percentage of "good" scientists, conversely this undeniably proves there is a certain percentage of "bad" scientists with an agenda to push. The Nebraska man was well accepted for quite a while, which is preposterous given what an obvious fake it was, given even the most superficial of inspections.

Neither of these remotely indicate there is some sort of conspiratorial "agenda" being foisted by scientists. Quite the contrary--they prove that science, unlike Creationism, undergoes peer review.

Well I'm sure that it probably isn't unheard of for creationists to have peer reviews of their own- by other creationists. Of course, that's not to say that creationists should be held in an equal light to evolutionists. But the fact remains that it is being reviewed by people who don't question the basic tenets of evolution. There are guys like me who want to overthrow the whole thing lock, stock and barrel, and finally seperate all the good science from the dogma. So yes, they are being reviewed by people with a accolades of one form or another, but they are working from purely within the system.

The problem is there is already oodles of compelling evidence--evidence that has proven evolution as fact many times over. Refusing to accept that evidence because it doesn't jive with one's world view is what makes one a fundie nutball.

Bory, you say that is has been proven over and over, many many times. But what does that really mean? Do you mean that evolution has been proven the end-all, be-all, theory of everything for biology? Or do you mean that certain aspects of evolution, or certain evolutionary theories have been proven to absolute certainity, so that the study of evolution as whole has been rather fruitful? I would find myself to agree with the latter, but not the former. There are many "casket corners", that the current range of thought within evolutionary circles can't possibly ever attempt to adqueately explain. For example, the origin of life itself, the appearence of different sexes, the symetry of life and so forth. Evolution is currently too limited in it's realm of possible thought to be able to be the Theory of Everything that it's handlers desire.

Of course, I find a theistically driven evolution, relative to theistic creation of exactly equal appeal. So my appeal isn't based on emotion or superstition or anything of that nature whatsoever. In fact, I'm sure life's origins are not purely one or the other, but rather a hodepodge of things, with a of bit evolution here and little bit of creation there.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Its likley taht it is, but certainly theres nothign wrong with organism having four wings...

My doubts about the fossil have nothing to do with the number of wings. I doubt the fossil because it's from China; this wouldn't be the first time that a fake proto-bird fossil came out of the Middle Kingdom...

Is this the "once a thief, always a thief" argument? So the US and other countries have produced fossil hoaxes too, are they not to be trusted either?

Besides, as I said, there's an article in Nature of the discovery.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
Bory, the problem is that you don't have to be a fundie nutball to start seeing, if not a conspiracy per se, certainly an "agenda" being pushed by evolutionists. All one needs to do is look at their record (e.g piltdown man, nebraska man, etc) to realize that truth is not necessarily a prequisite for the accomplishment of some evolutionists agenda. Therefore, a certain agenda, or even a full blown conspiracy, in these matters is very easily discenible.

You are saying that a few fossil hoaxes among tens if not hundreds of thousands of genuine fossils constitute a conspiracy?

[Drake Tungsten]

Is this the "once a thief, always a thief" argument? So the US and other countries have produced fossil hoaxes too, are they not to be trusted either?

Sorry UR, but this sounds suspiciously like the Archaeoraptor hoax that was exposed a mere three years ago, a fossil that was covered in National Geographic as well. China has a deserved reputation as a source of fradulent discoveries, so it is perfectly reasonable for one to doubt the truth of this latest find.

[Az]

"Feathered limbs" is more precise, but a wing is just a limb with feathers, no

well, the geometry is not correct. besides, It's just artist's impression.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Is this the "once a thief, always a thief" argument? So the US and other countries have produced fossil hoaxes too, are they not to be trusted either?

Sorry UR, but this sounds suspiciously like the Archaeoraptor hoax that was exposed a mere three years ago, a fossil that was covered in National Geographic as well. China has a deserved reputation as a source of fradulent discoveries, so it is perfectly reasonable for one to doubt the truth of this latest find.

You haven't answered my question. You are merely stating the same thing again.

[Sarxis]

Only you Urban Ranger can take a paleontological discovery and go straight to troll status with it.