Creation & EvolutionForum 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.
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."
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.
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."
"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
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?
Linear Mode
