The lies they tell

Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

Moderator: Moderators

The lies they tell

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed May 23, 2018 1:47 am

https://www.icr.org/article/whats-the-f ... aeopteryx/
'What's All the Flap About?'
It's about liar Christians like the geologist Dr Timothy Clarey PhD. Who completely ignores the fact that scientists now classify Archaeopteryx as a bird-like dinosaur rather than the 'first' bird (even though it could apparently fly a short distance to escape predators). He actively tries to link his deliberately misleading statement "It’s quite clear Archaeopteryx was a fully designed bird that could fly directly from the ground. It possessed some unusual features for a bird, and possibly used its wings a bit differently from more modern birds, but it was a bird nonetheless" with THIS article - yet the article contradicts Clarey:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03296-8
The article states in the opening paragraph of its introduction: "As the oldest potentially free-flying avialian known, Archaeopteryx represents the prime candidate to consider in resolving the initial chapter of bird flight. Although the traditional dichotomy between an arboreal and a cursorial origin of avian flight has relaxed towards the consideration of intermediate perspectives, the question whether the first flying bird-line dinosaurs took flight under their own power remains unanswered." Thus the article confirms that Archaeopteryx is considered a bird-line dinosaur and an avialian or avialan ie a member of the avialae clade - the Wikipedia page on birds states: "Primitive bird-like dinosaurs that lie outside class Aves proper, in the broader group Avialae, have been found dating back to the mid-Jurassic period, around 170 million years ago. Many of these early "stem-birds", such as Archaeopteryx, were not yet capable of fully powered flight, and many retained primitive characteristics like toothy jaws in place of beaks, and long bony tails", and in addition Wikipedia reports on its avialae page: "Archaeopteryx lithographica, from the late Jurassic Period Solnhofen Formation of Germany, is the earliest known avialan which may have had the capability of powered flight".

And then Clarey misleads or actively lies again with: "In Genesis, God tells us He created birds, like Archaeopteryx, on Day 5 of Creation Week, birds that would reproduce only after their kind" and "The fossil record confirms this account" and "Birds, like Archaeopteryx, appear suddenly in the Flood sediments, fully formed and without any ancestors" and "There are no fossils of any type of transitions between dinosaurs and birds".

Reality confounds your lies, Clarey:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... s_to_birds

And he still hasn't finished lying: "Flight feathers also appear in the rock record, fully formed. The first feather and the subsequent 12 articulated specimens of Archaeopteryx confirm that birds have always been birds by design". Except when they were distinctly unbiblical sounding bird-like dinosaurs (though in the case of Archaeopteryx at least it apparently could fly a bit). As the abstract of that Nature Communications article, that Clarey would prefer his readers (such as Cowboy Bob Sorensen) NOT to examine, states: "After over 150 years of study, its mosaic anatomy unifying characters of both non-flying dinosaurs and flying birds has remained challenging to interpret in a locomotory context".

The ICR are an utter disgrace.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8538
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The lies they tell

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed May 30, 2018 1:52 am

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8538
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The lies they tell

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:28 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:https://www.icr.org/article/whats-the-flap-archaeopteryx/
'What's All the Flap About?'
It's about liar Christians like the geologist Dr Timothy Clarey PhD. Who completely ignores the fact that scientists now classify Archaeopteryx as a bird-like dinosaur rather than the 'first' bird (even though it could apparently fly a short distance to escape predators). He actively tries to link his deliberately misleading statement "It’s quite clear Archaeopteryx was a fully designed bird that could fly directly from the ground. It possessed some unusual features for a bird, and possibly used its wings a bit differently from more modern birds, but it was a bird nonetheless" with THIS article - yet the article contradicts Clarey:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03296-8
The article states in the opening paragraph of its introduction: "As the oldest potentially free-flying avialian known, Archaeopteryx represents the prime candidate to consider in resolving the initial chapter of bird flight. Although the traditional dichotomy between an arboreal and a cursorial origin of avian flight has relaxed towards the consideration of intermediate perspectives, the question whether the first flying bird-line dinosaurs took flight under their own power remains unanswered." Thus the article confirms that Archaeopteryx is considered a bird-line dinosaur and an avialian or avialan ie a member of the avialae clade - the Wikipedia page on birds states: "Primitive bird-like dinosaurs that lie outside class Aves proper, in the broader group Avialae, have been found dating back to the mid-Jurassic period, around 170 million years ago. Many of these early "stem-birds", such as Archaeopteryx, were not yet capable of fully powered flight, and many retained primitive characteristics like toothy jaws in place of beaks, and long bony tails", and in addition Wikipedia reports on its avialae page: "Archaeopteryx lithographica, from the late Jurassic Period Solnhofen Formation of Germany, is the earliest known avialan which may have had the capability of powered flight".

And then Clarey misleads or actively lies again with: "In Genesis, God tells us He created birds, like Archaeopteryx, on Day 5 of Creation Week, birds that would reproduce only after their kind" and "The fossil record confirms this account" and "Birds, like Archaeopteryx, appear suddenly in the Flood sediments, fully formed and without any ancestors" and "There are no fossils of any type of transitions between dinosaurs and birds".

Reality confounds your lies, Clarey:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... s_to_birds

And he still hasn't finished lying: "Flight feathers also appear in the rock record, fully formed. The first feather and the subsequent 12 articulated specimens of Archaeopteryx confirm that birds have always been birds by design". Except when they were distinctly unbiblical sounding bird-like dinosaurs (though in the case of Archaeopteryx at least it apparently could fly a bit). As the abstract of that Nature Communications article, that Clarey would prefer his readers (such as Cowboy Bob Sorensen) NOT to examine, states: "After over 150 years of study, its mosaic anatomy unifying characters of both non-flying dinosaurs and flying birds has remained challenging to interpret in a locomotory context".

The ICR are an utter disgrace.



Not that anyone could count YEC lies but here is another sentence chock full of them from the demonic Bob Sorensen:
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2018/07 ... ution.html
"When engaging in a debate (a real one, not swatting at groups of trolls on teh interweb), a good working knowledge of the opponent's position must be attained. The other person's position must be accurate represented (which is almost never done by atheists and evolutionists like this jasper link to this thread]). Engaging in majoring on minors (the intellectual equivalent of "typo pouncing") should not be a part of the discussion. Rather, the points of engagement should focus on the strongest part of the opponent's position. After all, if you can't dismantle those, you don't have much to offer in the way of opposition, do you? When someone takes the creationary argument, injects deep time and evolutionary presuppositions, then demands that we defend a position that we do not hold, that is a straw man. Let us explain our point of view based on our our own presuppositions, old son. You argue from your presuppositions and materialistic worldview, but somehow, it's wrong for us."

Still waiting for him to actually focus on my position in one of his internet attacks behind my back, never mind prove it wrong. Still waiting for him to explain how exactly I failed to accurately present the position of Tim Clarey on Archaeopteryx. Still waiting for the demon to explain exactly how I demanded Clarey defend a position he doesn't hold.

You get my drift.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8538
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom


Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron