Ray gets a thousand more sales out of me

Ray posted today about me calling him a willful liar. And thus will get lots of sales today. A pitty that he saw the business opportunity. Here my answer to his post:

Then Ray, for the Bible to be inerrant we should not find a single typo in any of them?

Also, do not misrepresent my writing, for some fossil-documented "species-to-species transitions" we have hundreds of fossils, for others we have tens. Why do you do this? Why did you have to change my meaning? Of course: willful liar.

There are several hominid fossils that demonstrate "transitions" between our common ancestor with chimps and ourselves, and you dismissed the whole thing because of a few fakes, and the lie that one fossil was a person with arthritis (willful liar). So, in the case of our evolution from ancestral apes (we are still apes), we do not have thousands, we have tens. So, does that invalidate evolution? Of course not. But you never mention these fossils, do you? Conclusion: willful liar.

Of course orangutans are our very distant relatives, but that does not qualify them to fly in the plane with us. Should now I assume that God does not exist because mentally challenged people would not behave either, then God does not exist because the mentally challenged should be the image of God, and thus be all right? Or else is God mentally challenged too?

Now where you said I spoke to lay folks about the theory and each sounded like an expert at first. Come on! These TEENS sounded like experts first? You are not only a willful liar but a bad one at that. I might believe that the UCLA profs did not want to appear in your mockumentary, but not that those you present in the video sounded like experts first. You have to be kidding me.

Your video does not debunk evolution, it debunks strawmen of evolution. This is what your customers will never understand. Sad but true. Keep the lies coming Ray. It works for you all right.

Anybody buying your special will be buying a bunch of lies and misinformation. I can do nothing about it, so be it.

G.E.

Debunking evilution?

Hey guys!

A long time. This post is kind of a test of honesty for the Christians.

My Christian friends,

This is a re-post of something I wrote at Ray's, with a few editions for better clarity. I would like to know what you think of this, and whether this convinces you that Ray and Kirk's "Evolution" is actually dishonest:

How could the WOTM about Evolution be brilliant? You call telling lies and doing ridiculous acts of dishonesty brilliant? What would you think of a video against God where I would go outside and ask unaware teens whether they have proof that God exists? Then I get them to hesitate about what they think that is writen in the Bible, get them to say they are no expert priests, then put them into some fallacious test where they would have to conclude that there is no God. Would that be "Brilliant"? Wouldn't you wonder why did I not interview Ray (for instance), or someone alike? Someone who has supposedly thought about it, rather than any random teen at the street?

Then, suppose I also go and make false statements about the "theory of God's existence"? Imagine that I say that to prove the God of the Christians it is necessary to examine all of the printed copies of the Bible, no matter which version. Then I say: according to the Christians, the Bible is the inerrant word of God. To prove this we should not find a single typo in them, not a single copy of it with misprint, nor anything alike, because it is the work of God, and thus every copy has to be pristine and perfect. Then I show you a few copies, taken from some place where Bibles have to be old, odd printed, and tattered by time and use, let us say these come from a time and place when Bibles were forbidden, and thus printed in basements with poor equipment and low-quality paper, then I claim, you see, all Bibles are like this! Would that be "Brilliant"?

Then I proceed and go searching for someone with mental problems, and take him/her for dinner, and I show that he/she has no manners, and spills everything, or whatever, then claim, well, he/she should be perfectly well behaved, this is what you should expect since the creationists would want you to believe that we were created to the image of God. How come this person has so much trouble with table-manners? Would that be "Brilliant"?

I could continue, but seriously, would you call such a thing brilliant, or preposterous bunch of lies, full of treacherous tactics, and misrepresentations?

Please be honest guys, now compare my imaginary video on "The theory of God's existence" with the Evolution video. Do you see the problem with Ray and Kirk or not?

G.E.

The Fool Hath Said in His Heart....blah, blah, blah

Tired of theists calling you a "fool" because of a few verses of scripture? Well, don't worry, you are in good company.

If rejecting scripture makes me a fool....well, I am damn foolish, indeed! The likes of Ray seem to live in a different world, where nothing scathes their beliefs. They adopt even the most ardent atheist as their own-if they can quote-mine them. Ironically, Ray feels he is not a fool due to his presumed understanding of and belief in that favorite work of fiction. It seems we can't point out enough what an idiot he really is when he makes claims about things that can be checked. For example, he makes himself an idiot when he says thinks such this:

"Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is not a hoax—-it is a bird, not a "missing link" between birds and reptiles. The missing link is still missing, and I'm still waiting for the first piece of genuine evidence for the theory of evolution."

This is known as observational selection. He neglects all the other dinosaur to bird forms we have. Archaeopteryx is but one form. Further, Ray Comfort wouldn't know a strong piece of evidence if he saw it, because he doesn't know anything about biology. A trained paleontologist understands anatomy and physiology inside and out, and not just of one organism, but many related organisms to the ones they study. Certain bone shapes, sizes and orientations tell a paleontologist a wealth of information that would be wasted on Ray Comfort. Notice Ray doesn't explain what would be a "genuine" piece of evidence in the reptile-bird transition...because he hasn't a clue. I am going to provide the talk origins section on this:

Claim CC214:There are no transitional fossils between reptiles and birds.

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, 75.

Response: Many new bird fossils have been discovered in the last couple of decades, revealing several intermediates between theropod dinosaurs (such as Allosaurus) and modern birds:


Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).


Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999).


Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx (Xu et al. 2002). Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).


Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and Avimimus (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features.


Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002).


Shenzhouraptor (Zhou and Zhang 2002), Rahonavis (Forster et al. 1998), Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.


Sapeornis (Zhou and Zhang 2003), Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g., Confuciusornis and Changchengornis; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).


Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as Sinornis (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), Gobipteryx (Chiappe et al. 2001), and Protopteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.


Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.


Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.


Modern birds.
References:
Chen, P., Z. Dong and S. Zhen, 1998. An exceptionally well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian Formation of China. Nature 391: 147-152.
Chiappe, L. M., 2002. Osteology of the flightless Patagopteryx deferrariisi from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia (Argentina). In Chiappe and Witmer, pp. 281-316.
Chiappe, L. M. and L. M. Witmer (eds.), Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Chiappe, L. M., M. A. Norell and J. M. Clark, 2001. A new skull of Gobipteryx minuta (Aves: Enantiornithes) from the Cretaceous of the Gobi Desert. American Museum Novitates 3346: 1-15. http://diglib1.amnh.org/novitates/i0003-0082-346-01-0001.pdf
Chiappe, L. M., M. A. Norell and J. M. Clark, 2002. The Cretaceous, short-armed Alvarezsauridae. In: Chiappe and Witmer, pp. 87-120.
Chiappe, L. M., S. Ji, Q. Ji and M. A. Norell, 1999. Anatomy and systematics of the Confuciusornithidae (Theropoda: Aves) from the Late Mesozoic of northeastern China. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 242: 1-89. http://diglib1.amnh.org/bulletins/i0003-0090-242-01-0001.pdf
Clark, J. M., M. A. Norell and L. M. Chiappe, 1999. An oviraptorid skeleton from the Late Cretaceous of Ukhaa Tolgod, Mongolia, preserved in an avianlike brooding position over an oviraptorid nest. American Museum Novitates 3265: 1-36.
Clarke, J. A. and M. A. Norell, 2002. The morphology and phylogenetic position of Apsaravis ukhaana from the late Cretaceous of Mongolia. American Museum Novitates 3387: 1-46. http://diglib1.amnh.org/novitates/i0003-0082-3387-01-0001.pdf
Currie, P. J. and P. Chen, 2001. Anatomy of Sinosauropteryx prima from Liaoning, northeastern China. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 38: 1705-1727.
Forster, C. A., S. D. Sampson, L. M. Chiappe and D. W. Krause, 1998. The theropod ancestry of birds: New evidence from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. Science 279: 1915-1919.
Hwang, S. H., M. A. Norell, Ji Q. and Gao K., 2002. New specimens of Microraptor zhaoianus (Theropoda: Dromaeosauridae) from northeastern China. American Museum Novitates 3381: 1-44. http://research.amnh.org/users/sunny/hwang.et.al.2002.pdf
Ji, Q., P. Currie, M. A. Norell and S-A. Ji, 1998. Two feathered dinosaurs from northeastern China. Nature 393: 753-761.
Makovicky, P. J., M. A. Norell, J. M. Clark and T. Rowe, 2003. Osteology and relationships of Byronosaurus jaffei (Theropoda: Troodontidae). American Museum Novitates 3402, 1-32. http://diglib1.amnh.org/novitates/i0003-0082-3402-01-0001.pdf
Maryanska, T., H. Osmólska and M. Wolsan, 2002. Avialan status for oviraptorosauria. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 47(1): 97-116. http://app.pan.pl/acta47/app47-097.pdf
Paul, Gregory S., 2002. Dinosaurs of the Air. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sereno, P. C. and C. Rao, 1992. Early evolution of avian flight and perching: New evidence from the Lower Creates of China. Science 255: 845-848.
Sereno, P. C., C. Rao and J. Li, 2002. Sinornis santensis (Aves: Enantiornithes) from the Early Cretaceous of Northeastern China. In: Chiappe and Witmer, pp. 184-208.
Vickers-Rich, P., L. M. Chiappe and S. Kurzanov, 2002. The enigmatic birdlike dinosaur Avimimus portentosus. In: Chiappe and Witmer, pp. 65-86.
Xu, X. and X. Wang, 2003. A new maniraptorian dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous Yixian Formation of Western Liaoning. Vertebrate Palasiatica 41(3): 195-202.
Xu, X. and X-C. Wu, 2001. Cranial morphology of Sinornithosaurus millenii Xu et al. 1999 (Dinosauria: Theropoda: Dromaeosauridae) from the Yixian Formation of Liaoning, China. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 38: 1739-1752.
Xu, X., Z. Tang and X. Wang, 1999a. A therizinosaurid dinosaur with integumentary structures from China. Nature 399: 350-354.
Xu, X., X-L. Wang and X-C. Wu, 1999b. A dromaeosaur dinosaur with a filamentous integument from the Yixian Formation of China. Nature 401: 262-266.
Xu, X., Z. Zhou and R. O. Prum, 2001. Branched integumental structures in Sinornithosaurus and the origin of feathers. Nature 410: 200-204.
Xu, X., M. A. Norell, X. Wang, P. J. Makovicky and X. Wu, 2002. A basal troodontid from the Early Cretaceous of China. Nature 415: 780-784.
Xu, X., Z. Zhou, X. Wang, X. Kuang, F. Zhang and X. Du, 2003. Four-winged dinosaurs from China. Nature 421: 335-340. http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/zo501/4WingedDino.pdf
Zhang, F. and Z. Zhou, 2000. A primitive enantiornithine bird and the origin of feathers. Science 290: 1955-1959.
Zhou, Z. and F. Zhang, 2002. A long-tailed, seed-eating bird from the Early Cretaceous of China. Nature 418: 405-409.
Zhou, Z. and F. Zhang, 2003. Anatomy of the primitive bird Sapeornis chaoyangensis from the Early Cretaceous of Liaoning, China. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 40: 731-747.
Further Reading:
Chiappe, L. M. and G. J. Dyke, 2002. The Mesozoic radiation of birds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 91-124. (technical)

Dingus, L. and T. Rowe, 1997. The mistaken extinction: dinosaur evolution and the origin of birds. New York: Freeman and Company.

Padian, K. and L. M. Chiappe, 1998. The origin of birds and their flight. Scientific American 278(2) (Feb.): 38-47.

Paul, Gregory S., 2002. Dinosaurs of the Air. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Pojeta, John Jr. and Springer, Dale A., 2001. Evolution and the Fossil Record, American Geological Institute, Alexandria, VA. http://www.agiweb.org/news/spot_06apr01_evolutionbk.htm , http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf .

Prum, Richard O. and Alan H. Brush, 2003. Which came first, the feather or the bird? Scientific American 288(3) (Mar.): 84-93.

Wang, Justin, 1998. Scientists flock to explore China's 'site of the century'. Science 279: 1626-1627.