|
Post by tomhet on Jul 31, 2008 17:19:23 GMT
*celebrates* ;D
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 1, 2008 0:32:13 GMT
They should definitely date the Lioaning soft tissue. Yeah,they definitely would do it! ;D By the way,why they haven't done it yet?? Fear of the (scaly) truth,maybe? Is this a joke? You know there's a difference between soft tissue and soft tissue "impressions"? You people are acting like this has something to do with feathered dinosaurs. T. rex did not have feathers. There are skin impressions. It had bloody scales. Even sauropods would be expected to have proteins closer to chickens than to crocodiles. Know why? THEY WERE CLOSER TO CHICKENS THAN TO CROCODILES. If they weren't, THEY WERE NOT DINOSAURS, but giant crocs. Guess what--Dimetrodon was closer to humans than to lizards. If we found soft tissue from Dimetrodon, it's protein would logically be closer to all mamals, including humans, than to an iguana. Does that mean they drove cars? Of course not! Are you mentally ill? Everyone here celebrating this as having anything to do with feathers or the appearance of dinosaurs at all has, literally, no idea what they are talking about. You people know nothing about science, or how it works, and you don't seem to care. I'm just about done with this forum. It's not what I thought. It's a den of morons. Frigging JP legacy is infinitely more intelligent. Totally agree with you,Piltdown...There is almost an OCEAN between saying "filaments" and sayin' "feathers"! But you know how some scientists are,nowadays..."Fortune and glory" is all they seek and to hell good science... ;D You wouldn't know good science if it bit you on the ass. Science is not Indiana Jones. It's not what you see on TV. You impression of it is so wrong I don't know where to begin. So I won't try. Go get an education. Try to go to college. Failing that, please don't breed. I'm out.
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Aug 1, 2008 0:41:57 GMT
Thank you for your rational and measured comments, O great exponent of the scientific method. Dinotoyforum, does this not qualify as an ad hominem attack? I thought only faith-based people did that! And this is why people who have doubts about the "birds are dinosaurs" mantra don't get any attention. They are not being refuted, they are being shouted at as 'morons' and know-nothings about science. What I do know about the scientific method is that an experiment must be able to be replicated before it can be considered valid. Kaye tried in vain to replicate Schweitzer's findings; despite his best efforts--he emphatically said he wanted to find dinosaur proteins--he found nothing but 1960s sludge. How is this not science, eh?
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Aug 1, 2008 0:45:59 GMT
As far as tyrannosaurus is concerned, it is the consensus opinion of the dinosaur-bird palaeontologists that tyrannosaurus was indeed feathered as a chick. Since you don't know me, I doubt you know how many scientific studies and books I have indeed read.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 1, 2008 0:46:45 GMT
Thank you for your rational and measured comments, O great exponent of the scientific method. Dinotoyforum, does this not qualify as an ad hominem attack? I thought only faith-based people did that! And this is why people who have doubts about the "birds are dinosaurs" mantra don't get any attention. They are not being refuted, they are being shouted at as 'morons' and know-nothings about science. What I do know about the scientific method is that an experiment must be able to be replicated before it can be considered valid. Kaye tried in vain to replicate Schweitzer's findings; despite his best efforts--he emphatically said he wanted to find dinosaur proteins--he found nothing but 1960s sludge. How is this not science, eh? This isn't about Schweitzer's findings. If her findings were disproven, fantastic. Science wins. This is about people extropolating this, based on nothing, to a completely different situation--feathered dinosaurs. If you realize this, and allow others like sid to go along with it, you're being deceitful to further your personal bias. If you don't realize this, you don't understand logic, let alone science, and the moron comments are spot on. Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Aug 1, 2008 0:47:22 GMT
Yeah,they definitely would do it! ;D By the way,why they haven't done it yet?? Fear of the (scaly) truth,maybe? Is this a joke? You know there's a difference between soft tissue and soft tissue "impressions"? You people are acting like this has something to do with feathered dinosaurs. T. rex did not have feathers. There are skin impressions. It had bloody scales. Even sauropods would be expected to have proteins closer to chickens than to crocodiles. Know why? THEY WERE CLOSER TO CHICKENS THAN TO CROCODILES. If they weren't, THEY WERE NOT DINOSAURS, but giant crocs. Guess what--Dimetrodon was closer to humans than to lizards. If we found soft tissue from Dimetrodon, it's protein would logically be closer to all mamals, including humans, than to an iguana. Does that mean they drove cars? Of course not! Are you mentally ill? Everyone here celebrating this as having anything to do with feathers or the appearance of dinosaurs at all has, literally, no idea what they are talking about. You people know nothing about science, or how it works, and you don't seem to care. I'm just about done with this forum. It's not what I thought. It's a den of morons. Frigging JP legacy is infinitely more intelligent. Totally agree with you,Piltdown...There is almost an OCEAN between saying "filaments" and sayin' "feathers"! But you know how some scientists are,nowadays..."Fortune and glory" is all they seek and to hell good science... ;D You wouldn't know good science if it bit you on the ass. Science is not Indiana Jones. It's not what you see on TV. You impression of it is so wrong I don't know where to begin. So I won't try. Go get an education. Try to go to college. Failing that, please don't breed. I'm out. Why propose logical arguments when insults will do? ;D
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 1, 2008 0:47:52 GMT
As far as tyrannosaurus is concerned, it is the consensus opinion of the dinosaur-bird palaeontologists that tyrannosaurus was indeed feathered as a chick. No, it is not. Where are you getting that? I know of one article, in a popular magazine, NOT science journal, that presented that as possible, speculation. There zero evidence for it, and it is in no way consensus. You are wrong. Please tell me which studies you read that conclude rex had feathered chicks.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 1, 2008 0:50:41 GMT
Why propose logical arguments when insults will do? ;D Because there's nothing to argue against. How do you argue against the "argument" that because T. rex blood vessels turned out to be slime, Dilong did not have feathers? It makes literally no sense in any way. Complete non sequitor that you have yet to point out, in fact it looks like you agree with it!
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Aug 1, 2008 0:52:28 GMT
"Deceitful" and "moronic"? Someone has indeed run our of arguments! ;D I thought only faith-based people who know nothing about science did that?
What Kaye's findings show is that there is no biochemical basis for proclaiming tyrannosaurus is a chicken relative. Since we know both dinosaurs and chickens are archosaurs, we know they are related, but no one can use those "proteins" as evidence now.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 1, 2008 0:54:41 GMT
"Deceitful" and "moronic"? Someone has indeed run our of arguments! ;D I thought only faith-based people who know nothing about science did that? What Kaye's findings show is that there is no biochemical basis for proclaiming tyrannosaurus is a chicken relative. Since we know both dinosaurs and chickens are archosaurs, we know they are related, but no one can use those "proteins" as evidence now. Answer the questions please. Which studies provide consensus that rex chicks had feathers? In what way does this mean feathered dinosaurs aren't real? In what way does this suggest birds did not evolve from dinosaurs? Dodging the question does not disprove my argument that you have no idea what you are talking about, it strengthens it. As you say you know, you can never prove anything in science, only disprove. I said you were a moron. It was a rant, probably worded too strongly, I apologize. But still, you have yet to prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 1, 2008 1:01:02 GMT
This just in:
So why should we listen to you again...?
The problem with the internet age: no respect for expertise. There's a myth that everybody's opinion is worth the same. It's a myth. My opinion on human evolution is worth nothing, because that's not my area. It's worth more than a literary scholar's, but not as much as an anthropologists.
Is Dr. Kaye's opinion or findings worth as much as somebody with a background in vertebrate biology? Maybe somebody from a third field, say in the study of vertebrate tissues/proteins, should try to replicate the results before we reach any conclusions. Their opinion would be worth the most.
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Aug 1, 2008 1:04:24 GMT
Thank you for your rational and measured comments, O great exponent of the scientific method. Dinotoyforum, does this not qualify as an ad hominem attack? I thought only faith-based people did that! And this is why people who have doubts about the "birds are dinosaurs" mantra don't get any attention. They are not being refuted, they are being shouted at as 'morons' and know-nothings about science. What I do know about the scientific method is that an experiment must be able to be replicated before it can be considered valid. Kaye tried in vain to replicate Schweitzer's findings; despite his best efforts--he emphatically said he wanted to find dinosaur proteins--he found nothing but 1960s sludge. How is this not science, eh? This isn't about Schweitzer's findings. If her findings were disproven, fantastic. Science wins. This is about people extropolating this, based on nothing, to a completely different situation--feathered dinosaurs. If you realize this, and allow others like sid to go along with it, you're being deceitful to further your personal bias. If you don't realize this, you don't understand logic, let alone science, and the moron comments are spot on. Which is it? *Decides to no longer respond to libelous, raving comments* My mother always said anyone who pays attention to someone who has obviously acting irrationally is even more foolish and mad than he is, and I think I may have done so. I have printed out all the studies I need, and that is enough for me, I don't really mind what other people say.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 1, 2008 1:05:38 GMT
This isn't about Schweitzer's findings. If her findings were disproven, fantastic. Science wins. This is about people extropolating this, based on nothing, to a completely different situation--feathered dinosaurs. If you realize this, and allow others like sid to go along with it, you're being deceitful to further your personal bias. If you don't realize this, you don't understand logic, let alone science, and the moron comments are spot on. Which is it? *Decides to no longer respond to libelous, raving comments* My mother always said anyone who pays attention to someone who has obviously acting irrationally is even more foolish and mad than he is, and I think I may have done so. I have printed out all the studies I need, and that is enough for me, I don't really mind what other people say. Still dodging, still refusing to name the studies. I rest my case. Hypothesis: Piltdown does not know what he's talking about. Null: Piltdown knows what hes talking about. Methods: Request Piltdown to provide evidence he knows what he's talking about and discuss actual science rather than opinion. Piltdown was asked to cite studies he mentioned earlier. Results: Piltdown dodges strightforward questions that would be simple to answer if he knew what he was talking about. Conclusion: Supports hypothesis, rejects null hypothesis. Further research: Need to give Piltdown more time, null can be supported in the future if Piltdown provides citations and is willing to engage in reasoned discussion as he indicated earlier.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 1, 2008 11:07:41 GMT
I have some comments on the above posts:
Piltdown said: Dinotoyforum, does this not qualify as an ad hominem attack?
It’s not as obvious as you might think. “Does that mean they drove cars? Of course not! Are you mentally ill?” And “I'm just about done with this forum. It's not what I thought. It's a den of morons.” Are not ad homs, they are just insults. An ad hom argument only occurs when one says “you are a moron therefore you are wrong” or ‘you are wrong because you are a moron’. In this case, thag’s argument can be summarized as follows, ‘you’re argument is a non sequitir therefore you are a moron and you do not understand science.” That ‘you are a moron’ is a conclusion not a premise, so it is not an ad hom. It might be a different logical fallacy but I can’t work it out.
Thag wrote: I'm just about done with this forum. It's not what I thought. It's a den of morons. *weeps in corner* Off the top of my head, Sbell, Crazycrowman, yourself and me are strong advocates of science and intellectual honesty around here. I think the debates are good and interesting. What a boring place this would be if we all agreed on everything.
Thag said: The problem with the internet age: no respect for expertise. There's a myth that everybody's opinion is worth the same. It's a myth. My opinion on human evolution is worth nothing, because that's not my area.
This is elitist and I disagree. Everyone’s opinion IS worth the same. However, all opinions require the same amount of evidence to back them up – that’s where the problem lies. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you do, if you can back up an argument with evidence it is just as valid as the next persons. The difference is that some people are in a better position to acquire the evidence. Beware of the ‘argument from authority’ logical fallacy.
Thag said: Still dodging, still refusing to name the studies. I rest my case.
He’s turning you into an experiment Piltdown! He’s right though, you have to back up your statement with examples to verify it, the questions he ask are simple enough.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 1, 2008 12:46:09 GMT
Wow,Thagomizer,there's no need to insult me or Piltdown only because we expressed our opinions about the matter...Be cool,man.
We are just discussing DINOSAURS,for Zeus' sake,not some extremely vital topic,like,for example,we are on a desert island and must decide what we gonna do to survive...Or some other hard stuff like that ;D
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 1, 2008 15:14:42 GMT
"I think the debates are good and interesting. What a boring place this would be if we all agreed on everything."
I second this, and have always been interested in what thagomizer and others have had to say.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Aug 1, 2008 18:04:21 GMT
*refrains from responding angrily*
thagomizer, if this is not your ideal internet community, that's fine, but don't insult members. That has nothing to do with the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Aug 1, 2008 22:24:13 GMT
Stego Tail: While I respect your knowledge, I think Piltdown is the most entertaining person on this blog. It doesn't matter whose right its not a contest. I mean we all collect toys how smart can we be? If you take things so seriously, which are of little consequence, your going to end up being very lonely.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 2, 2008 4:13:16 GMT
Wow,Thagomizer,there's no need to insult me or Piltdown only because we expressed our opinions about the matter... This is what I mean about all opinions not being equal. His opinion is based on ignorance. If my opinion is that the Earth is flat, because in my experience, it seems flat--is that opinion worth the same as somebody who has sailed around the globe? No, because one of us has more knowledge of the subject. What's wrong with elitism? If you know more about a subject than I do, I should value your opinion over mine (that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to gather evidence by my self to back up my case of course, maybe with more knowledge I can show you where you're wrong in specifics). This is one of my favorite segments form the Daily Show in a few years: www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166074&title=headlines-gaffe-inThe part about elitism starts at 7:10 into it. Articulates my own opinion pretty well. "If you don't believe you're better than us, then what the **** are you doing?" If all our opinions were worth the same, what's the point of having people go to uni and study science? Do you really think your opinion is or should be equal to the opinion of somebody who's spent years of their life studying and gaining experience in a subject? I know there's the whole touchy-feely idea out there that everybody's opinion is valid, but that's total BS. My opinion on architecture is worth jack, and Frank Lloyd Wright's opinion on paleontology is worth jack. That ‘you are a moron’ is a conclusion not a premise, so it is not an ad hom. It might be a different logical fallacy but I can’t work it out. I dunno, it may be a logical fallacy but I don't see what kind. Actually, I think it might just be logical. I think I may have proven it objectively! (j/k... sort of).
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Aug 2, 2008 4:42:24 GMT
I didn't want to dignify the aspersions and insults of Thagomizer with a response, but this is simply too much.
Really, thagomizer. You speak of your 'knowledge'. Do you want to assert you know more about birds than Alan Feduccia? Storrs Olson? Larry Martin? Ernst Mayr? Mayr, you should know, is the greatest evolutionary thinker since Charles Darwin. You know who Darwin is, don't you? Prove it then! How many birds have you discovered? How many dinosaurs have you excavated that have not been previously known to science? Do you know more about taphonomy than Theagarten Lingham Soliar! If you do know something they don't, do tell us! If not, stop boasting about your 'elitism'!
You do NOT know how much about dinosaurs I've read. Or do you? Perhaps you shall tell us where God stores his lightning bolts? Does the crocodile come at your beck and call? Then how DO YOU know what I know? I probably was talking about stegosaurs long before you were even born!
|
|