| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | 
9th November 2003, 02:42 AM
| | Newbie
   
| | Join Date: 9th November 2003
Posts: 1
Blessings: 91,205
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | | The Sad Case of Mr. Camp
Provided at "True Origins", is one of the more renowned creationist essays on avian phylogenetics, with particular emphasis on the origin of birds and the validity of the theropod "paradigm" (or lack thereof). It is by the vaunted Ashby Camp, and presents probably the most coherent creationist criticism of this topic. As such, it is quite precious to most creationists with whom I have debated. Thus, ladies, gentlemen, have you any opinions, comments on the article?
_____________
Vindex Urvogel
"From its remains Archaeopteryx might be characterized as a reptile in the
disguise of a bird."
-Gerhard Heilmann, 1926 |
9th November 2003, 04:01 AM
|  | WinAce > cdesign proponentsists
32  
 | | Join Date: 24th June 2003 Location: Chiark
Posts: 18,443
Blessings: 125,711
Reps: 16,712 (power: 43) | | | could you pm me a link and I will post it for you.
__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging. |
9th November 2003, 09:57 AM
|  | Legend
42 
| | Join Date: 31st May 2002
Posts: 11,095
Blessings: 68,657
Reps: 33,621 (power: 54) | | Originally Posted by Vindex Urvogel Provided at "True Origins", is one of the more renowned creationist essays on avian phylogenetics, with particular emphasis on the origin of birds and the validity of the theropod "paradigm" (or lack thereof). It is by the vaunted Ashby Camp, and presents probably the most coherent creationist criticism of this topic. As such, it is quite precious to most creationists with whom I have debated. Thus, ladies, gentlemen, have you any opinions, comments on the article?
Not sure what article you are referencing but considering that Mr. Camp's expertise is as a lawyer turned minister and he has no field or research experience in the areas he discusses, it would be hard to take him as a authority on the subject or somebody who can contribute to the scientific discussion of the origins of birds.
He also seems to have no problem pushing strawmen and mischaraterizations of the theory of evolution as can be seen here. http://www.creationequation.com/arch..._Interview.htm  |
9th November 2003, 12:39 PM
|  | Prism Ranger
24 
| | Join Date: 25th February 2003 Location: Birmingham
Posts: 1,813
Blessings: 95,099
Reps: 382 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Ashby Camp in Notto's article 6. Can evolutionism qualify as genuine science? If not, why not? Originally Posted by Ashby Camp in Notto's article
I don't think there's an agreed definition of "genuine science." If genuine science means exploring the natural world without excluding a priori any explanation of the data, then to the extent "evolutionism" restricts explanations to unintelligent causes, it does not qualify as genuine science. Of course, to the extent creationists restrict explanations to those that are consistent with Scripture, our exploration of the natural world also does not qualify as genuine science.
At least he got that part right.
__________________
Greatest Hovind quote of all time, as voted for by members of CF:
"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world." |
9th November 2003, 02:40 PM
|  | HI
28 
| | Join Date: 23rd January 2003
Posts: 12,645
Blessings: 91,976
Reps: 5,365 (power: 27) | | | Great, another person who has not studied science, yet has basically declared himself an expert, because he thinks evolution = atheism.
I feel sorry for his daughter (and readers).
__________________
Wei wu wei
Green faeries |
10th November 2003, 01:02 AM
|  | Be wise and be smart
26  
| | Join Date: 16th December 2002 Location: University of Rhode Island
Posts: 1,539
Blessings: 265,835
Reps: 3,202,689,982,729,637 (power: 3,202,689,982,740) | | Originally Posted by Vindex Urvogel's profile Archosaur paleontology
YES! Post here more often!
also, is this the article you're talking about?
__________________ "Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution." -Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine |
10th November 2003, 01:37 AM
| | WinAce > cdesign proponentsists
32
| | Join Date: 24th June 2003 Location: Chiark
Posts: 18,443
Blessings: 125,711
Reps: 16,712 (power: 43) | | |
__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging. |
10th November 2003, 08:08 AM
| | Legend
42
| | Join Date: 31st May 2002
Posts: 11,095
Blessings: 68,657
Reps: 33,621 (power: 54) | | | Is this article simply another example of creationists nit picking on certain disagreements among paleontologists and emphasising this disagreement as some type of argument against evolution.
It seems that their worst criticism (as found in their conclusion) is against National Geographic and Nature for overzelous reporting. If they would turn their criticism on their own publications (such as their own website), it would be interesting to see how much overzelous reporting one could find.
On one hand the article accuses scientists of dogma. On the other, it explains that the hypothesis being discussed is criticized by different scientists and that there are several working hypothesis that are being investigated. Seems a bit contradictory to me.
The article seems to be lacking an alternative explaination for all of the specimens that have been found and an explaination for where they were found (and when they were found to originate). Flightless birds and feathered dinosaurs (of species that do not exist today) would seem to be hard to explain in a creation 'theory' that depends on special creation of species according to their kind by a creator creating a 'perfect' creation.
Did God get a kick out of creating flightless birds as much as he got a kick out of designing beetles? | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
