Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole

"jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

> > Note: creationist letters published as a courtesy in New Scientist
> > magazine are not the same as peer-reviewed science papers published in
> > professional, refereed science journals.
> 
> say the guy who throw around the T.O. faqs as they were pages of the bible.

As I have repeatedly made clear, the t.o. FAQs are a convenient
reference, because they often summarize peer-reviewed papers.  As I
have repeatedly made clear, the t.o. FAQ on transitionals was
supported by over 70 references, many of which were to peer-reviewed
papers published in professional, refereed science journals.  You have
pointedly ignored that, because it has stolen all of your wet-powder
rusty, misfiring jammed-in-the-barrel ammunition.

Admit that you are a Loser, Loser.  That's what you are.  It is all
you have ever been.  It is all you can ever hope to be - a drive-by
poster who cannot support a thing he says, who has been repeatedly
caught lying and cheating, who runs away like a scared little boy
every time he is challenged and cannot find any more straw men to hide
behind or lies to disguise his stupidity and ignorance.

> > Note: argument from incredulity published half a century ago does not
> > count.
> 
> So darwin is refuted as well because  of age

Since Darwin's work was not argument from incredulity, you lose. 
Since Darwin's work was only the beginning and has been steadily and
continuously built upon ever since right up to the present day, your
lousy cheap-ass brain-dead "argument" fails, as have all of your
arguments.  Your evasion of **YET ANOTHER** difficulty with **YET
ANOTHER** straw man has been noted world-wide.

> > Note: Comparisons of modern birds and reptiles have no bearing on
> > evolution since no evolutionist claims that modern birds evolved from
> > modern reptiles.
> 
> nor ancient ones.. but you would not know this eh??
> misdirecton also noted...

Your evasion, repeated evasion, of the archaeopteryx challenge I have
repeatedly attacked you with has been noted world-wide.  Your evasion
of **YET ANOTHER** difficulty with **YET ANOTHER** straw man has been
noted world-wide.

Your lie about misdirection has also been noted since it was you who
posted the article about the differences between modern birds and
modern reptiles.

> > Note: The Talk.origins transitional fossils FAQ lists over 70
> > references, many of which are to papers published in professional,
> > refereed science journals.
> >
> 
> T.O. Faqs are not peered reviewed, and quite old as well.

Your complete inability to actually read and digest what I have said
has been noted world-wide.

Not that it will do any good, but as I have MADE REPEATEDLY CLEAR TO
YOU, the t.o. FAQ on transitionals was supported by **over 70
references** many of which were to **peer-reviewed papers** published
in professional **refereed science journals**.

Now that I have slapped your stupid drooling slack jaw once more,
please feel free to snip and ignore this.  We expect it of you.  We
all know, world-wide, what a moron you are and that you cannot answer
serious questions and challenges anyway.

> > Note: Your quiet abandonment of every single thread in which I have
> > challenged you has also been noted world-wide.
> 
> no I just snipped useles repetitive  and useless banter

Another cheap Jabriol Lie(TM).  What you have done is completely
avoided challenges and questions as soon as you run out of excuses,
lies and straw men.  What a hypocrite you are - accusing me of doing
the very thing that you are so expert at.  I have met your challenges
head on, then you turn around and run like a scared chicken from every
single challenge and question I have laid at your door.  What a
two-faced chickenshit little runt you are.

You can run all you want, asshole, but you will never, ever, ever, I
promise you, be able to avoid me, because I will hound you all across
the Internet to your grave with these same questions until you finally
drop to your knees and actually deal with them.

> > Note: your panicked fleeing from every request that you either accept
> > or deny (with supportive evidence) the fifty-fifty mix of reptile/dino
> > and bird features in archeopteryx has been noted.
> 
> sure.. sure.. sure... one thing archeopteryx is a bird.. not dino bird...

That's pretty pathetic, not to say embarrassingly brain-dead coming
from the same moron fuckwit who has carefully avoided the thread where
I posted the following material:

Your URL refers to Longisquama insignis, but mentions nothing about
archaeopteryx.  Here is a URL that is more recent than the one you
quoted, which also talks about Longisquama insignis:
http://www.menunkatuck.org/pages/longis.html

Here is a quote:
"Critics of the current report think there is little evidence that the
appendages on Longisquama are feathers and find no other structures
that link this non-theropod reptile to the branch of dinosaurs that
are likely to have given rise to birds."

Now are you clued in to the value of recent data and of actually
following a developing story instead of obsessive-compulsively sucking
onto the first thing you see that *you* think supports your wacko view
of the universe and not letting go no matter what?

Now once again, the URL you gave had nothing whatsoever to do with
archaeopteryx, which is what is under discussion here, and as I have
repeatedly made clear: **REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THIS FOSSIL REPRESENTS
AN ANCESTOR OF BIRDS, IT WAS A MIX OF REPTILE-DINO/BIRD FEATURES**.

This discussion is about the existence of transitional (read
"intermediate") forms, not about the origin of birds.  Once again,
answer the question: Do you deny this fossil had a mix of features and
if you do, what is your evidence?  Forget about what it is labeled as
- we are talking about the features it actually exhibited.  Can you
grasp that?  Deal with that.

Regardless of what archaeopteryx was called, the mix of features was
pretty much fifty-fifty.  It was classified as a bird because it has
to be classified as something.  The presence of feathers is what
overshadowed other considerations when it was decided to place it with
the birds, but the mix of features is undeniable.  Have you got that
now?  Do you deny this mix?  If so, once again, where is your
evidence?  That was the issue.  That was the question.  Deal with the
issue.  Answer the question, or this will be yet another example of
the way you evade dealing with direct questions.  You can blather all
the argument you wish, but your endless evasion of follow-up
consistently undermines everything you try to establish.  Got that,
Moron?

Now I have a URL for you:
http://www.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/birds/birddivresources/evolhist.html

Just like yours, it is a .EDU, but unlike yours, it actually discusses
archeopteryx.  Here is a quote:

"Archaeopteryx is unlike modern birds in retaining some primitive
conditions shared with dinosaurs and other reptiles: teeth in jaw,
curved backward; snout rather than a bill; small braincase
(intermediate in relative body size between modern reptiles and modern
birds) with large olfactory lobes; abdominal ribs or gastralia. The
caudal vertebrae are unfused, in London specimen, each with a pair of
feathers. This represents a reduction in tail size (as in birds);
there were twice that many in some dinosaurs. The scapula and coracoid
are fused in London specimen, but not in Solnhofen specimen. The
sternum shows no keel (as opposed to modern flying birds). There is
also no foramen triosseum between the coracoid, sternum and clavicles,
so no pulley for breast muscles to pull up the wing. It has unfused
carpals and metacarpals. No active flight was possible, as there are
no feather attachment bumps on the ulna. The pubis has a footplate;
the position of pubis (anterior, ventral, or posterior as in modern
birds) is questionable (loosely attached, perhaps bent posteriorly
after death; is somewhat ventral in fossils, the angle varies). Nearly
all these characters are the same as in coelosaurian dinosaurs, which
were apparently the ancestors of birds."

Did you get that last sentence?  "Nearly all these characters are the
same as in coelosaurian dinosaurs..."  QED.  You lose.  Deal with it
loser.

And once again, let's have a look at the "banter" that you snipped,
which was actually nothing of the sort, but a series of serious
challenges that **YOU HAVE ONCE AGAIN EVADED DEALING WITH BECAUSE YOU
KNOW FOR A FACT THAT YOU CANNOT HANDLE THEM**.  Here they are, and
they will not go away, because I will hound you on these endlessly
until you do deal with them, you weasel.

Answer these questions:

1. Do you deny that the archaopteryx is a 50-50 dino-bird mix?

2. If so what is your refutation?

3.  If not, what has happened to your assertion that there are no
transitionals and that reptiles\dinos could not have evolved into
birds?

You lose.  Deal with it Loser.

> > Now are we ever going to see a list of these "colossal holes" you
> > invented, or are your own wacko claims the only things that exhibit
> > colossal holes?
> the man with eys cant see.. the sotory of budikka

Soroty?  What's a sotory, you illiterate fuck?  What are eys?  I'll
tell you what they are - yet another in an endless blather of excuses
from the asswipe who claimed there were colossal holes in the Theory
of Evolution, but who has not been able to **LIST** even *a single
one* of them, despite being requested to do so regularly over a period
of several weeks.

What I asked for was a list.  In fact, all I have been asking for
recently is just that - a simple list of these colossal holes the
mythical existence of which you plagiarized from Booker.

You don't have to support it with evidence or even define what you
mean by any of the items you can list.  All you have to do is list
these colossal holes - right here in one place.  You don't even have
to number the items in the list (it's kind of hard to number a list
which contains no items anyway).

You *do know* what a list is, right?  Here is an example for you to
look at:

THIS
IS
A
LIST
COMPOSED
OF
THE
WORDS
IN
THESE
TWO
SENTENCES.
GET
IT
NOW?

Can you copy this list, but substitute these "colossal holes" of yours
in place of the words I listed?

Or is the only colossal hole that we will see you prove the very hole
that is left by your evident inability to actually list even one
"colossal hole"?

Remember, argument from incredulity doesn't count, even if it is
published in a science news magazine like "New Scientist".

Remember, letters from creationists published as a courtesy in New
Scientist are **not** the same thing a a peer-reviewed paper published
in a refereed professional science journal, and that it is completely
dishonest to quote from those letters using the words, "New Scientist
says..."

Remember, contrasting modern fauna (for example, reptiles and birds)
doesn't count since no evolutionist actually claims that any modern
species gave rise to any other modern species (with a few exceptions).
 What evolutionists can demonstrate from all available lines of
evidence is that modern organisms have common ancestors.

Remember that snipping all these difficult challenges because you have
run out of cheap excuses and cannot answer them doesn't count as a
valid response.

Have you got all that?  Well, start listing.  The world is still
waitng, several weeks later, for a **LIST** of these "colossal holes"
of yours.  We already have a complete list of your lousy excuses why
you can't post such a list, so don't bother posting any more of those.
 Any response to this which does not contain such a list will be
considered a direct and open admission by you that there are no such
holes.

Budikka