Real or just to thinking9136
 Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
| The Fossil Records Disprove Evolution One of the best pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. Ever heard of the phrase "say a lie enough times people will believe it." Well, being that the fossil record goes against evolution, atheist/evolutionists like to make it work for them by screaming it's proof. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution never occurred! Evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms and this is simply a lie. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A "true transitional form" would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing. Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms? You evolutionist always say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. (You said it in an older post.) The Bible states in Genesis that all creatures reproduce “after their kind” (not change into another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism. |
||
| Post 251 • IP flag post | ||
 -Our Odin-Rest in Peace |
Jesse_O private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Just an observation - why has no one mentioned the Indian (as in country) religions? Hinduism and Buddhism are two or the largest religions. That's not even mentioning the various offshoots, tribal religions and numerous other belief systems out there. | ||
| Post 252 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
etapi65 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GanaSothQuote: Originally Posted by GanaSoth I don't know where you quoted this from. It's wrong. There are transitional forms. There are also, both rapid, and slow evolution from the perspective of geologic time, though I'm not sure what your definition of rapid and slow are (on what time scales they're operating). It depends on "generations"; or, how long is the reproductive cycles. I'm assuming you understand some organisms may take 20 years for a "generation" while others may be days or weeks and for many microbes even shorter. Read the book "the Beak of the Finch" for evidence of transitional forms. Or, articles like https://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6208/463 They are scientific evidence of evolution. There are transitional forms in the fossil record. You're just wrong in how you're describing the science. Or rather, the quote you've not sourced and taken from somewhere is wrong and is simply ignorant of the science. You can also look up the experiments by Mori on fruit flies...and I can't locate it at the moment in my files (it's one of many relayed in the book "Beak of the Finch"  , but a similar experiment took a species of fly, used their phenotype to isolate various genotypes and over decades only allowed said flies to reproduce within those now isolated populations. They recorded genetic change at every stage and documented transitional stages after (I believe 30 years...may have been 20, why I was trying to find the paper) they took individuals from both populations and put them back together. They were not able to reproduce. In otherwords the genetic change that had occurred by isolating these two phenotypes had, indeed lead to a new species incapable of reproducing with the original species. This is evolution from a scientific definition. Again, you're simply wrong because you have no idea of where the science on this is, currently (this is at least 20 year old findings on the flies). Similar, short term experiments are the basis of freshmen/sophomore level genetics labs at universities for biology students. |
||
| Post 253 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Marximus private msg quote post Address this user | |
| It's only a matter of time before Bigfoot makes an appearance... | ||
| Post 254 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by etapi65 Hahaha. That's called adaptation.... It never evolved into any other species. Its still a "bird." Stop using lies to try to promote your evolution. Show us proof of fossils with transitional forms. |
||
| Post 255 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| "Evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms and this is simply a lie. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A "true transitional form" would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing." suggests the man with a tailbone, nipples and at least ten vestigial organs in his own body..... But what about whales and their vestigial limbs...or snakes and theirs....the list is endless.... Psittacosaurus a dinosaur that had vestigial fingers, tyrannosaurus who is depicted with two fingers but had a third vestigial digit...there are thousands, literally of species in the fossil record spanning fish to man and even plants and insects with vestigualor incomplete or residual body parts..... Much of what you are attempting to argue simply does not match the record...there are 7,000 transitional species in museums around the world from every corner of mans great world. @ Jesse I have alluded to how seccular religion ignores that god supposedly ignored all other cultures but even then these cultures are not into full blown scientific denial like some disciplines are. I sat here the other night with a Mennonite girl I went to high school with and she was shocked at some of the assertions being made here about Christianity even....especially that anyone would still be attempting to use Hovind, missler, or even Ken Ham for any form if inspiration. Most middles eastern religious camps are not immersed in debunking science in the hopes of shoring up a failing belief system I believe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality  |
||
| Post 256 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
etapi65 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Jesse_O My guess would be that there are not any Buddhists here, or, they're simply laughing to themselves regarding the silly "debate" going on here. There's a cool National Geographic article...must be a decade old about quantifying "happiness" via neurological exploration. They tested the current Dalai Lama and he was quantifiably the happiest person they'd ever tested. Buddhism is amazing, life is pain, and once you accept that you can let go; bringing happiness and enlightenment. I fear for Buddhists when the Dalai Lama passes as the chosen Panchen Lama was denied and the one "chosen" by the Chinese government in their occupation of Tibet has vanished. |
||
| Post 257 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town Really? You guys... Haha. So that bone in the whale has no use huh? It used to be legs? Wrong.... it helps the whale in childbirth for one. Next your probably going to say that our "tail bone" is also a transitional appendage. Wrong again. Just like the whale, it connects tissues, tendons and muscles. What's next the appendix? |
||
| Post 258 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
      Hahha and this is evolution...winged feathered dinosaurs found all over china...fossil solid proof of the evolution of dinosaurs to birds.... |
||
| Post 259 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
| So the t-rex turned into a chicken? No, that's just another species. It shows no other transitional forms. Where is the form of it in between? There is no such fossil. The only thing fossils can tell us is that animal or insect died. It cant tell is if it had offspring. |
||
| Post 260 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
etapi65 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GanaSothI provided you with sources, for you to read yourself. You clearly didn't. You, apparently, are ignorant of the definition of species and speciation versus adaptation. I'm sorry for this, I learned this in 4th or 5th grade, but our education system is certainly spotty. These are not the same thing. Adaptation is a change to better suit your environment. Like human height skewing towards taller over time, larger men, etc... Speciation, an indication of evolution, is when one organism, via genetic variability; becomes broken into two (or more) sub populations that become geographically isolated. Typically through a natural event such as a volcanic eruption which leads to fragmentation of native habitat range. The isolation created by this separation leads to continued genetic drift until what once was one species, becomes two (or more). Further, we define the word species based on Linnean taxonomy and differentiate organisms at the species level. The word "bird" likely means you're referring to Aves, which is at the level of "class". Understand that what I've linked for Linaean taxonomy is actually the most basic diagram possible and does not represent the full complexity of subclasses, suborders, etc... So, again, you're simply wrong. You don't understand the base terminology, so I'm not sure how you can hope to discuss this. |
||
| Post 261 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| correct a chicken is a separate species EVOLVED from a t rex...you are getting it now. The transitional forms were just shown to you and you deny they exist. there are multiple fossils despite your repeated denialist agenda. Oh an that last line is so incorrect it couldn't be quantified....a fossil does not prove an animal died. How utterly silly. What if its a footprint? that doesn't prove it died, it proves it was walking right? what if the fossil is a nest? it proves the animal was nesting...what if it was a feces ….it process the animal had a bowel movement....you continuously spout misinformation . But here is the real thing....you can use chemicals to test if a woman is pregnant correct? so yes you can apply similar tests to some dinosaur fossils to determine sex, pregnancy and birthing history....sad news for you, its been done, the paper was peer reviewed and the evidence is solid. | ||
| Post 262 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Marximus private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by etapi65 I'm one of the laughing ones. No major religion can be proven, or disproved. They have survived centuries for a reason. Science doesn't have all the answers. Nor does religion. Neither ever will. That's why we call it 'the mystery of life'. Can be fun to speculate. But also wearisome. When I die, I will do my best to come back and update this thread, if it is at all possible. So don't ban me, mods. |
||
| Post 263 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Archaeopteryx is NOT a Transitional fossil Recent events cast even further doubt on Archaeopteryx as a transitional form. If the claims of "Sankar Chatterjee" prove to be valid, then certainly Archaeopteryx could not be the ancestral bird, and dinosaurs could not be ancestral to birds. Chatterjee and his co-workers at "Texas Tech University" claim to have found two crow-sized fossils of a bird near Post, Texas, in rocks supposedly 225 million years old—thus allegedly 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx and as old as the first dinosaurs. Totally contrary to what evolutionists would expect for such a fossil bird, however, Chatterjee claims that his bird is even more bird-like than Archaeopteryx! In contrast to Archaeopteryx, this bird had a keel-like breastbone and hollow bones. In most other respects, it was similar to Archaeopteryx. If evolutionary assumptions are correct, this bird should have been much more reptile-like than Archaeopteryx. In fact, he shouldn't even exist! |
||
| Post 264 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
| New York Times even covered the story way back in the day. Archaeopteryx is NOT a Transitional fossil |
||
| Post 265 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| oh dear now your quoting from Chatterjee, the man who extrapolated that india was the impact point of a major meteor beneath the ocean called Shiva? Chatterjee whose famous find the Protoavis was determined to be a chimera of fossils from other specimens and thus not valid? If you wish to quote science at all please use CURRENT findings rather than things 20 years old, thanks Chatterjee and his work on Protoavis were long determined to be inaccurate |
||
| Post 266 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GanaSothyesthey said might not be...34 years ago before all the peer reviewed science was accounted for...ugh....please keep up with the evidence if you want to use it. 1986 for heavens sakes....and youo are trying to argue this as valid today? |
||
| Post 267 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GanaSothand indeed it did not exist...it was found to be a chimera...rather than cherry picking the science to use only the bits that work for you try reading the full story please |
||
| Post 268 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
| It hasn't been debunked for 34 years. Simple question. What came first? The chicken or the egg? |
||
| Post 269 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
etapi65 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_townQuote: Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town Yeah, I'm not sure what site this guy is using for his information, but they are WOEFULLY inadequate. I'm not sure if the "sources" are old, or if they simply grasp at any crazy notion that comes along. Pro-science tip, media outlets relay science in a way to drag in readers regardless of the voracity of the claims. I won't give a direct link, as some people may find language used offensive, but perhaps this could help you better understand the relationship between "pop-science" as relayed in the media and actual science. Check out Scientific Studies: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) |
||
| Post 270 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GanaSoth here you go debunked.... Protoavis (meaning "first bird" is a problematic dinosaurian taxon known from fragmentary remains from Late Triassic Norian stage deposits near Post, Texas. Much controversy remains over the animal, and there are many different interpretations of what Protoavis actually is. When it was first described, the fossils were described as being from a primitive bird which, if the identification is valid, would push back avian origins some 60-75 million years. The original describer of Protoavis texensis, Sankar Chatterjee of Texas Tech University, interpreted the type specimen to have come from a single animal, specifically a 35 cm tall bird that lived in what is now Texas, USA, around 210 million years ago. Though it existed far earlier than Archaeopteryx, its skeletal structure is allegedly more bird-like. Protoavis has been reconstructed as a carnivorous bird that had teeth on the tip of its jaws and eyes located at the front of the skull, suggesting a nocturnal or crepuscular lifestyle. Reconstructions usually depict it with feathers, as Chatterjee originally interpreted structures on the arm to be quill knobs, the attachment point for flight feathers found in some modern birds and non-avian dinosaurs. However, re-evaluation of the fossil material by subsequent authors such as Lawrence Witmer have been inconclusive regarding whether or not these structures are actual quill knobs. However, this description of Protoavis assumes that Protoavis has been correctly interpreted as a bird. Many palaeontologists doubt that Protoavis is a bird, or that all remains assigned to it even come from a single species, because of the circumstances of its discovery and unconvincing avian synapomorphies in its fragmentary material. When they were found at the Tecovas and Bull Canyon Formations in the Texas panhandle in 1984, in a sedimentary strata of a Triassic river delta, the fossils were a jumbled cache of disarticulated bones that may reflect an incident of mass mortality following a flash flood. move along thanks chicken or the egg...quite simple honestly....eggs were in use long before chickens appeared, dating back even to fish and lizards....so the egg came first, thanks for asking |
||
| Post 271 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
etapi65 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GanaSoth You haven't looked to see if it were debunked in 34 years, because why would you questions something that backs-up your personal opinions? The egg came first, because stuff that lays eggs existed long before chickens. |
||
| Post 272 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Of course evolutionist think the egg came first. Was the egg furtilized? | ||
| Post 273 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Was the egg fertilized or not? If the egg came before the chicken, what fertilized the egg to make the chicken? |
||
| Post 274 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
   this is the science by evidence, thanks |
||
| Post 275 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
| You can say that eggs are directly from the magical ooze mud goblins for all I care. But you still haven't explained what came first. The chicken or the egg. When I say Egg I'm talking about Chicken Eggs, not reptile or insect eggs... because if evolution takes millions of years, I know an egg wasn't incubating that long until it was fully evolved into a chicken. And if there are transitional forms of reptiles laying eggs that eventually (over time) turned into a chicken, where are the transitional fossils for such a creature? Hell, where are all the other transitional forms of all creatures on earth for that matter.... |
||
| Post 276 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Yet again since you missed it....you are welcome..I showed you some fossils of transitional fossils but you are sitting there denying they exist despite the evidence plastered directly in front of your own nose, so I doubt you would accept a transitional fossil even if it were handed to you, In the end denialism and cognitive dissonance can be clearly spotted |
||
| Post 277 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
| That is not a transitional fossil. It's of one species. It doesn't show nub wings, nub legs etc where it was either dropping or adding to appendages through the process of so called evolution. | ||
| Post 278 • IP flag post | ||
 Suck it up, buttercup!!
|
KatKomics private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Jehovas used to leave stuff at my door...one day I was home. They were asking if I knew where my food came from, now I grew up in a community surrounded by farms - mostly fruit but some dairy, chicken and some farmers had a few pigs for their own use. I proceeded to tell the Jehova in detail about the time I was asked while at a friends house to help kill a pig -they don't come round here no more!!! I have issues with 'belief'. How many gods are there now?? how many have their been in the past?? Same god different profit - wellll we need to kill those people. Holy day is Saturday not Sunday - gotta kill those guys too!! Some guy from Galilei was able to prove without the help of aliens or space ships that earth was not the center of the solar system...nothin good came from that. Spoilers follow Not real : Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Baba Yagga, I guess all the other gods past and present but certainly not "your" god etc. etc. |
||
| Post 279 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @KatKomics that's right, certainly not "My" God. | ||
| Post 280 • IP flag post | ||
Thread locked. No more posts permitted. Return home.