Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Thursday, October 23, 2008

It's clearly just a bird....

Another bit of evolutionary evidence for the Creationists to sweep under that ever-burgeoning carpet of theirs.

This BBC article describes the discovery of Epidexipteryx; the "pigeon-sized creature shows no sign of the flight feathers seen in other bird-like dinosaurs", according to a report in the journal Nature.

Discovered in China, it apparently "... provides fascinating evidence of evolutionary experiments with feathers that were going on before small dinosaurs finally took to the air and became birds."

So. Freakin'. Cool.


That's one way of looking at it...

The other way;

It is definitely not a transitional form because, well, erm.....aha! I quoth: "...its limbs lacked contour feathers - a feature common to most modern birds." There! See! It's a modern bird! Stupid evilutionists and their scientific theory tale! Piltdown Man! Tiktockalick is just a fish! Darwin was a racist.....and so on and so forth.


I think I'll stick with the first way.

51 comments:

  1. Just Dugg that very same article.

    Yet another kick in the balls with a giant boot for the creotards.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You don't really believe that, do you Baldy?

    Honestly, they don't require evidence. They ignore anything that doesn't fit their literal biblical interpretation, and eagerly latch onto the tiny minority that does (even if it requires a bit of duct tape and Elmer's to get it to stick).

    Seriously, these people aren't interested in understanding their environment

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually, evolution-related or not, I don't believe most of what I get out of China without further proof.

    Whether it's fossil-related, or the reported age of Olympic gymnasts.

    And WEM - i feel that 'these people' is too much of a generalization. Could I suggest 'most creationists' or at least 'some people'?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "those scientists are just making stuff up. There is no evidence that this bird was blue and red" (undefined but very predictable creotard)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, of course it isn't a transitional form. We all know that an invisible spirit man popped out of nowhere and said 'Let there be this shit and that shit' and there it was.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Very cool. As stated before and by the picture of my foot in the footprint of an Acrocanthasaurus taken at the Dinosaur park in Glen Rose, Texas, I have always dug dinosaurs and eat this sort of thing up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. LAOF wrote And WEM - i feel that 'these people' is too much of a generalization. Could I suggest 'most creationists' or at least 'some people'?

    I can see that I was unclear about who I was referring to. I meant Christian "fundamentalists" rather than all creationists or all Christians.

    When I'm criticizing Christians, I almost always mean this small subset of them. Sorry for not being clear about that...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry, I'm gonna go way off topic for a personal rant.

    Now I guess we are suppose to be striking, is that right? Regardless I left a comment on the "Good news for Atheists" post in agreement with a comment from Steven J. It was about several sites I've stumbled upon recently by other evangelicals who claim that Ray's teachings are heretical. Both Steven J and myself asked Ray why we should believe his teachings when others say it will lead us to hell, and since this is our immortal soul, one can never be to careful. I stated I would have to disregard all Christianity until there was a general consensus on its doctrines. Then I asked who God hated more "a genuine skeptic or a blatant hypocrite?"

    Anyway, I didn't think my comment would make it through (it didn't) and now it seems that Steven J's original comment is gone. Can you completely remove a comment without getting the "Comment has been deleted by the blog administrator" screen? I don't know. I had a blog for 2 years but never censored or deleted comments, so I honestly don't know. I do know it's gone now though.

    BTW, the people calling Ray a heretic are just as bat-shit crazy as he is, if not more.

    Anyway, could someone let me know if it's actually possible to completely delete a comment.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It has to be Liz. Ray has done it before when someone posted the perfectly legal accounting statements of Living Waters. That was very funny whoever did that as I can't remember now.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Liz said, "BTW, the people calling Ray a heretic are just as bat-shit crazy as he is, if not more."

    How so? Calling Ray might be futile, but I don't think it deliniates that person as nessecarily crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Agghh.... Preview is my friend...

    That was meant to read "Calling Ray *out*...."

    ReplyDelete
  13. ornitheologist,

    She is referring to other Christian groups calling him out as a heretic.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Anyway, could someone let me know if it's actually possible to completely delete a comment."

    It is.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'll tell you one thing, that bird ain't no crockaduck!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Liz,

    Yes, it is. And when you do it's as if the comment were never there. Google might have cached it, though..not sure about that.

    Just try it. Make a test comment and then hit the little trashcan under it to delete it. You will then be asked something like 'Are you sure you want to delete this comment?' and there will be a choice to delete it or cancel. Under that there is a box you can check and it indicates something like 'Remove this comment forever'. If it is checked, then the comment is gone as if it weren't there.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The battle lines are constantly being drawn between the different christian sects.
    It seems most fundies latch onto one particular god-head or another; think personality cults.

    IF I were to want to be a christian, I think it would be impossible to choose which sect to follow. Whichever one I would choose would put me in opposition with the others.

    Rationalism rules!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rocky,

    It was 'aceofclubz' who delved into the black hole that is Living Water's finances in this, very popular, thread:

    http://raytractors.blogspot.com/2008/08/piety-of-ray-little-web-sleuthing.html

    Enjoy!

    LAOF,

    Do you think that the Chinese government is in on the Great Evolution Swindle as well as the godless scientific communities of the west?


    [psst! he's on to us!]

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well that just fries my ass. I understand that it's his blog/his rules but damn if that is not pretty smarmy.

    Why let Steven J's go through and then delete it later?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Liz,

    Ray is a pretty slimy piece of crap. There's no telling why he does what he does, but usually it's because his ego is acting up.

    ReplyDelete
  21. That new disclaimer he has is also another example of his ego/control issues. He should have just said what he really wanted to say which was 'If you dare post here your words are my property'. He gets off on shit like that.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Froggie posted a link to one of the articles.

    Here's the other one.

    http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/raycomfort.htm

    Sorry, forget how to link :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. 'If you dare post here your words are my property'

    I suspect that this is exactly what he thinks/feels (and thus, paying $100 for the essay, in an attempt to ward off legal issues). However, he should probably take another look at Blogger's ToU on intellectual property rights:

    "You acknowledge that Google owns all right, title and interest in and to the Service, including all intellectual property rights (the "Google Rights"). Google Rights are protected by U.S. and international intellectual property laws. Accordingly, you agree that you will not copy, reproduce, alter, modify, or create derivative works from the Service."

    ReplyDelete
  24. WEM,

    Great point. He should take a closer look at that. I mean, you know...it'd be a real pity of Blogger shut him down for TOS violation, now wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  25. While I don't want to advocate shutting him down (or hoping that it happens), it would be foolish of him to try to profit from intellectual property that isn't his.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @ Liz, Beanstalk, Froggie...

    Ahh, I see. My definition of 'heretic' is at fault. I was thinking more along the lines of Christians merely pointing out his mistakes and the like, not damning him to hell and all that jazz.


    Haha! Verification code is 'Latin'..... perfect for Epidexipteryx.

    ReplyDelete
  27. expatmatt asks:

    "LAOF,

    Do you think that the Chinese government is in on the Great Evolution Swindle as well as the godless scientific communities of the west?"

    No, I just don't trust the quality of work produced by most sources within China, whether they are manufactured goods, scientific discoveries, even statements of 'fact'.

    I have nothing against the people, just the goverment and any 'community' controlled by the goverment for its own gain (including the Chinese scientific community).

    ReplyDelete
  28. LAOF, I think you're painting the Chinese with a mighty large brush there.

    ReplyDelete
  29. To be fair, he would need a mighty large brush if he was going to paint all the Chinese.

    If you're concerned about the quality of their scientific output, you'll be glad to hear that there's a wonderful thing in the global scientific community called 'peer review'. Remember that S. Korean guy who claimed he had cloned a human? That's the sort of stuff that the peer review system sniffs out pretty quickly.

    I'm sure all their work will be thoroughly analyzed by numerous experts around the globe before it is considered to be 'fact' by the scientific community at large.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I admit, "Tiktockalick" made me laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Liz said...
    Well that just fries my ass.

    Haaaa! That takes me back thirty years. My uncle Donald was fond of saying that. He was a helicopter pilot; came out of Nam. He got killed by a truck running a red light. I think of him quite often.

    ReplyDelete
  32. NM,
    You said,
    "That new disclaimer he has is also another example of his ego/control issues. He should have just said what he really wanted to say which was 'If you dare post here your words are my property'. He gets off on shit like that."

    Man, you hit that nail on the head.
    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Laof,

    You said,
    "No, I just don't trust the quality of work produced by most sources within China."

    I am not going to go through my journal and supply you with the details, but if you care to research this you will find that it was a bunch of Austrailian Paleontologists that were given permission by the Chinese gument to dig in that area. China has been increasingly open to archeologists, etc, to work in their country.

    I can tell you that there are more disoveries coming. China has been, and still is a rather closed society that is starting to open up-----based on science. It's a long story, but, suffice to say that you will see some very intersting discoveries coming out of there in the next few years.

    There is a site in China that if the gov't ever grants permission to dig it, will produce the most profound ancient knowledge ever known (based on early human beliefs.)

    China has been fairly ammenable to requests from scientists all over the world to come there and study. They are slow, and very selective, but the results so far are very good.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Loaf,

    Re: Addendum to last comment

    Perhaps you are one of those people that refers to the Chinese People as "Chinks." Fuck You.

    /d

    ReplyDelete
  35. Kaitlyn said...
    LAOF, I think you're painting the Chinese with a mighty large brush there.

    Kait, I damn near fell out of my chair on reading that....
    There is not a brush broadenough with which to paint all those indigeonus tribes. China is a most interesting study of society. Yummy! Sociological dilemnas galore!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Damn, this sucks. Five comments and no goddamnded controversial responses....
    ***froogie resting in the mud of his love***

    ReplyDelete
  37. Damn, this sucks. Five comments and no goddamnded controversial responses....

    Hitler was a polar bear!

    TEACH THE CONTROVERSY.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Quasar said...
    Hitler was a polar bear!

    TEACH THE CONTROVERSY.


    Everyone knows that the evidence for that was manufactured by the Illuminati to draw attention away from the German V2 Rocket program.

    He was obviously a shape-shifting reptilian from the Pleiades Cluster.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Froggie said:

    "Perhaps you are one of those people that refers to the Chinese People as "Chinks." "

    Yeah froggie, when you can't provide a coherent statement, pull out the 'racist' card. And the rest of your five posts (with which you were trying to pull a response) were actually giving me pause to think.

    My opinion on the party that controls China is based on documented evidence that they control (and yes, MANIPULATE) the information that comes out through 'official' channels, if they feel it suits their needs. Just read some of the REAL news that came out of the Olympics (or 'post' olympics) for some current evidence of this.

    If you'd taken the time to analyze my post, you'd see that I wasn't doubting the actual discovery (although the rendered drawings are quite hilarious and 'fanciful'), I was expressing my opinion to be critical of ANYTHING that comes from the 'mouths' of the communists - whether it fits your needs or is contrary.

    I know that there are some that feel I belong to a group that can't think critically. Some even (erroneously) group me with 'the fundies' (which is a broad brush too, BTY, kaitlyn). And, of course, you seem to automatically reject anything I would say (let's see, who said that I did that, previously? hmmm... I'll do the research later).

    I really do appreciate the sensible arguments and debate put out by people such as WeM, Margon, even you too, sometimes, Froggie. But to be critical, you have to listen to other opinions without prejudice.

    I thought better of (I guess you could say, I was mildly impreesed by) most of your arguments, but to pull something like that off without even knowing me - well, it just knocked you down a notch on my 'opinion-meter'.

    There... more fodder for you to throw back at me or with which to make more wild accusations.

    @kaitlyn -

    As someone else here is fond of saying - that's a snarky comment.

    Perhaps I should request the contributor option for this blog. If 'you guys' haven't changed your mind.

    Of course, a denial would show the one-sidedness of the blog and its regulars.

    ReplyDelete
  40. yes, I guess I should use 'preview' more often too...

    That should be 'BTW' not 'BTY'.

    I'm imperfect as well.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I personally would enjoy the occasional topic written by a theist.

    I have to be honest, though - I'm not positive that we don't already have this happening. I just don't remember seeing anything in the recent past...

    ReplyDelete
  42. laof,

    I'm fine with you being a contributor (I think I even invited you to join a while back?) just so long as you post something interesting - the same goes for everyone.

    I think the main reason you get a lot of flack is because the comments are posted here in a much more responsive way than at, say, Atheist Central.

    It's hard to feel like you're actually having a conversation/debate/argument with anyone over there and when you do, it's generally the same recycled tripe about Darwin being a racist or there being no transitional fossils (hey, on topic!). There's no sense of actually getting anywhere with the discussion.

    So when the chat moves back here and we get theists like Jean and SCMike and Sye posting their inanity, there is a tendency to lump everyone in together.

    I know I've personally been a prick to you on a number of occasions and it's mostly unwarranted - I put it down to pent up frustration finding a release point and you being the unlucky recipient.

    Of course, if you do say some stupid shit, we're going to jump all over that too but I guess that's a bit of confirmation bias coming through on our end.

    Anyway, /rant.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @expatmatt:

    " know I've personally been a prick* to you on a number of occasions and it's mostly unwarranted - I put it down to pent up frustration finding a release point and you being the unlucky recipient#. "

    *I wouldn't put it that harshly. You've stated your opinions.

    #Unlucky? well, maybe not. Perhaps I thrive attention. You'd have to know me better. Perhaps I am a masochist (just a bit)... I may have to apolgize to 'tilia' yet again for her perhaps-accurate assessment.

    Yes, it was you that invited me to be a contributor earlier, but aside from WeM's affirmation of that, nobody else did.

    I'm waffling for sure, and still deciding which side of the fence I'll fall over (to?) as far as that decision. Like most 'parties', sometimes it's just nice having been invited.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Psh - don't wait *too* long :)

    The list is pretty much made up of people who've volunteered for the position, rather than a club requiring a secret handshake. If you've got stuff to say, whether it involves challenging atheist or Raytractor behaviors, or looking for answers to questions you have, or commentary on the latest political situation, or whatever: stand right up and ask.

    It's not a popularity contest - it's a soapbox.

    ReplyDelete
  45. LOAF,

    You said:

    "As someone else here is fond of saying - that's a snarky comment."

    Since you aren't giving credit where it's due, I'll fix that for ya. That 'someone' was me. And I'm not 'fond' of it, I said it once. To you.

    I fully encourage you to become a contributer here. As a matter of fact, I await it with giddy anticipation. I'd really love to see what you have to put forth.

    ReplyDelete
  46. All -

    I hereby attribute the use of 'snarky comment' to 'nonmagic'.

    NM -

    Sorry, I thought it was you but I hope this corrects it. no disrespect to you on this point. I just didn't want to attribute it to the wrong person. And, even though it was just a day (two?) ago, I didn't have time to look at it (and my memory is definitely fallable).

    Although, I do seem to remember you using it more than once, but that's not important to me if it isn't to you.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  47. LOAF,

    Maybe I'll trademark it. Snarky comment™. ;P

    ReplyDelete
  48. Laof,

    You said,
    "well, it just knocked you down a notch on my 'opinion-meter'."

    Good. This is the place for controversy and I have a blank check for mayhem.

    Then,
    "I know that there are some that feel I belong to a group that can't think critically. Some even (erroneously) group me with 'the fundies'"

    Actually, I have detected a semblence of rationality in your comments. But most important to me at this juncture is who should we "group" you with?

    I may have missed something but I don't know where you are coming from and that is why I chose to get under your skin a bit. :>

    ReplyDelete
  49. Froggie,

    "This is the place for controversy and I have a blank check for mayhem."

    Best comment EVER !!!

    ReplyDelete
  50. NM,
    Oh, I see you have your check book also!

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.