Your conclusion on God's existence

[TecK NeeX]

We've had this discussion before, and I believe I mentioned the University of Michagan's museum, as a for instance. Your reply was something like, "Sure, you mention that because you know I can't get there." Ok, so it must not be there than. As I said, i didn't know where you were or where you can get to. The evidence is where it is.

Yes we did, it was a scapegoat. Pahlease Jokerman, tell me whats in Michigan's museum?

So it has to be near you, huh? Ok, go to your local Mosque. Study the people there. They are proof of evolution. Your religious beliefs are the greatest proof of evolution ever, since religion developed in primitive man for his needs back then.

I have needs now Jokerman, if I wrote a book about them am I evolving? LOL stop it you're too much!

 

[Jokerman]

And furthermore...

Just because we don't have perfect information for every change that has ever taken place in all species does not invalidate evolutionary theory. Nor do these desperate creationist arguments like the Second Law of Thermodynamics give Darwinists one second of pause. Bitch, please! Irrelevant and not applicable beyond belief. Or, "it's only a theory" shit for the hundredth time. Thus, if evolution cannot be proved beyond question to be fact, then it's just as much a theory as creationism. The fallacy with that claim is its assumptions that all degrees of uncertainty are equal--by the same logic we could argue that since Darwin can't be proved absolutely and conclusively to have existed, then the case for Santa Claus is just as solid. Science never claims anything to be finally and absolutely proved. So in that sense every scientific belief is "just a theory." A demand for evolution to be proved beyond a question to be fact is an absurdity that fails to comprehend what science is all about. That would be like throwing out the laws of physics because we can't re-create the Big Bang in a test tube.

What makes a claim scientific isn't whether it turns out to be true or not, but the process by which it is arrived at. It seems ironic that those who preach knowledge of absolute truths tend to be the first to accuse scientists of being arrogant.

The supporting evidence for evolution is abundant in many different fields. It's solidly interconnected. No one needs to accept it on faith. Evolutionary theory succeeds to the highest degree of any other theory pertaining to the subject. The God theory does none of that. The scientific method has no preconceived notions about how things ought to be—no advance commitment to any holy book (not even Origin of Species), sacred doctrine, or political, social, or economic ideology that has to be upheld as a first priority. But creationism contrives to uphold a belief structure that exists before any evidence is considered, and to maintain itself subsequently, it must deny or distort any facts that it finds inconvenient.

The value of a scientific theory is judged by its power to predict. If evolution is valid, the newer discoveries made since its inception ought to be consistent with it. Apart from some haggling among specialists over relatively minor details, this has turned out to be overwhelmingly the case. Darwin and others predicted the essential properties of inherited genetic units, even though genes and chromosomes were unknown at the time. From evolutionary theory, DNAs from different species should exhibit a branching pattern that reflects the same time sequence of divergence as it is deduced by other methods; they do. The primitive metabolic chemistry of ancestral organisms should be discernible in today’s organic cells; it is. There shouldn’t be much difference in the genetic code inherited by all organisms; there isn’t. And so it goes.

And the predictive power of creationism? Do I hear silence? Can I get a witness? Can it predict which band in a series of tree rings should indicate the same age as a given mix of carbon isotopes? Or the tidal record that ought to be found written into fossil corals by the moon’s orbital motion of several hundred million years ago? Can creationism, in fact, give a hint of any future finding? Not a one. It operates with hindsight only. Because of its inbuilt unfalsifiability it can cobble together an explanation of anything at all—but only after the fact as established by other means. As a method of prediction it is sterile. That means it can’t create life.

As for this nonsense about “transitional forms,” guess what? No evolutionist is expecting such forms to exist. We are more than delighted that they don’t. Bwahahahaha! One of the strongest expectations the theory of evolution gives us is that transitional forms of the kind creationists are so proud to be able to hurl at us should not exist. Their non-existence is one more proof of the success of evolutionary theory and one more proof that creationists don’t know what the fluck they are talking about. Look at Teck with egg on his face! Dinosaur egg, of course. He’s quickly trying to recover from this latest blow to his pet argument. He’ll deny it of course and maybe quote some religious “scientist” who admits to being baffled by the lack of “transitional forms.” Give it a rest.

See, there’s a difference between “transitional” forms as creationists mean it and intermediate forms, which is what evolutionists study and discuss. I repeat: transitional forms should not exist. Intermediate forms should and do. So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, and between reptiles and mammals that God is beginning to doubt his own existence. He’s already come over to the evolutionist side.

P.S. I showed God this post before putting it up and this is what he said. “Your post succeeds quite brilliantly. Again and again it brings home the nature and force of evolutionary thinking in a way that I have never seen or felt previously. I pity the poor Teck who thinks otherwise.”

Wow. I’m now a believer.

 

[Duke]

And furthermore...

Just because we don't have perfect information for every change that has ever taken place in all species does not invalidate evolutionary theory. Nor do these desperate creationist arguments like the Second Law of Thermodynamics give Darwinists one second of pause. Bitch, please! Irrelevant and not applicable beyond belief. Or, "it's only a theory" shit for the hundredth time. Thus, if evolution cannot be proved beyond question to be fact, then it's just as much a theory as creationism. The fallacy with that claim is its assumptions that all degrees of uncertainty are equal--by the same logic we could argue that since Darwin can't be proved absolutely and conclusively to have existed, then the case for Santa Claus is just as solid. Science never claims anything to be finally and absolutely proved. So in that sense every scientific belief is "just a theory." A demand for evolution to be proved beyond a question to be fact is an absurdity that fails to comprehend what science is all about. That would be like throwing out the laws of physics because we can't re-create the Big Bang in a test tube.

What makes a claim scientific isn't whether it turns out to be true or not, but the process by which it is arrived at. It seems ironic that those who preach knowledge of absolute truths tend to be the first to accuse scientists of being arrogant.

The supporting evidence for evolution is abundant in many different fields. It's solidly interconnected. No one needs to accept it on faith. Evolutionary theory succeeds to the highest degree of any other theory pertaining to the subject. The God theory does none of that. The scientific method has no preconceived notions about how things ought to be—no advance commitment to any holy book (not even Origin of Species), sacred doctrine, or political, social, or economic ideology that has to be upheld as a first priority. But creationism contrives to uphold a belief structure that exists before any evidence is considered, and to maintain itself subsequently, it must deny or distort any facts that it finds inconvenient.

The value of a scientific theory is judged by its power to predict. If evolution is valid, the newer discoveries made since its inception ought to be consistent with it. Apart from some haggling among specialists over relatively minor details, this has turned out to be overwhelmingly the case. Darwin and others predicted the essential properties of inherited genetic units, even though genes and chromosomes were unknown at the time. From evolutionary theory, DNAs from different species should exhibit a branching pattern that reflects the same time sequence of divergence as it is deduced by other methods; they do. The primitive metabolic chemistry of ancestral organisms should be discernible in today’s organic cells; it is. There shouldn’t be much difference in the genetic code inherited by all organisms; there isn’t. And so it goes.

And the predictive power of creationism? Do I hear silence? Can I get a witness? Can it predict which band in a series of tree rings should indicate the same age as a given mix of carbon isotopes? Or the tidal record that ought to be found written into fossil corals by the moon’s orbital motion of several hundred million years ago? Can creationism, in fact, give a hint of any future finding? Not a one. It operates with hindsight only. Because of its inbuilt unfalsifiability it can cobble together an explanation of anything at all—but only after the fact as established by other means. As a method of prediction it is sterile. That means it can’t create life.

As for this nonsense about “transitional forms,” guess what? No evolutionist is expecting such forms to exist. We are more than delighted that they don’t. Bwahahahaha! One of the strongest expectations the theory of evolution gives us is that transitional forms of the kind creationists are so proud to be able to hurl at us should not exist. Their non-existence is one more proof of the success of evolutionary theory and one more proof that creationists don’t know what the fluck they are talking about. Look at Teck with egg on his face! Dinosaur egg, of course. He’s quickly trying to recover from this latest blow to his pet argument. He’ll deny it of course and maybe quote some religious “scientist” who admits to being baffled by the lack of “transitional forms.” Give it a rest.

See, there’s a difference between “transitional” forms as creationists mean it and intermediate forms, which is what evolutionists study and discuss. I repeat: transitional forms should not exist. Intermediate forms should and do. So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, and between reptiles and mammals that God is beginning to doubt his own existence. He’s already come over to the evolutionist side.

P.S. I showed God this post before putting it up and this is what he said. “Your post succeeds quite brilliantly. Again and again it brings home the nature and force of evolutionary thinking in a way that I have never seen or felt previously. I pity the poor Teck who thinks otherwise.”

Wow. I’m now a believer.

 

[ManiacDego]

religion brings war

 

[TecK NeeX]

And furthermore...Nor do these desperate creationist arguments like the Second Law of Thermodynamics give Darwinists one second of pause. Bitch, please! Irrelevant and not applicable beyond belief. Or, "it's only a theory" shit for the hundredth time. Thus, if evolution cannot be proved beyond question to be fact, then it's just as much a theory as creationism. The fallacy with that claim is its assumptions that all degrees of uncertainty are equal--by the same logic we could argue that since Darwin can't be proved absolutely and conclusively to have existed, then the case for Santa Claus is just as solid. Science never claims anything to be finally and absolutely proved. So in that sense every scientific belief is "just a theory." A demand for evolution to be proved beyond a question to be fact is an absurdity that fails to comprehend what science is all about. That would be like throwing out the laws of physics because we can't re-create the Big Bang in a test tube.

What makes a claim scientific isn't whether it turns out to be true or not, but the process by which it is arrived at. It seems ironic that those who preach knowledge of absolute truths tend to be the first to accuse scientists of being arrogant.

The supporting evidence for evolution is abundant in many different fields. It's solidly interconnected. No one needs to accept it on faith. Evolutionary theory succeeds to the highest degree of any other theory pertaining to the subject. The God theory does none of that. The scientific method has no preconceived notions about how things ought to be—no advance commitment to any holy book (not even Origin of Species), sacred doctrine, or political, social, or economic ideology that has to be upheld as a first priority. But creationism contrives to uphold a belief structure that exists before any evidence is considered, and to maintain itself subsequently, it must deny or distort any facts that it finds inconvenient.

The value of a scientific theory is judged by its power to predict. If evolution is valid, the newer discoveries made since its inception ought to be consistent with it. Apart from some haggling among specialists over relatively minor details, this has turned out to be overwhelmingly the case. Darwin and others predicted the essential properties of inherited genetic units, even though genes and chromosomes were unknown at the time. From evolutionary theory, DNAs from different species should exhibit a branching pattern that reflects the same time sequence of divergence as it is deduced by other methods; they do. The primitive metabolic chemistry of ancestral organisms should be discernible in today’s organic cells; it is. There shouldn’t be much difference in the genetic code inherited by all organisms; there isn’t. And so it goes.

And the predictive power of creationism? Do I hear silence? Can I get a witness? Can it predict which band in a series of tree rings should indicate the same age as a given mix of carbon isotopes? Or the tidal record that ought to be found written into fossil corals by the moon’s orbital motion of several hundred million years ago? Can creationism, in fact, give a hint of any future finding? Not a one. It operates with hindsight only. Because of its inbuilt unfalsifiability it can cobble together an explanation of anything at all—but only after the fact as established by other means. As a method of prediction it is sterile. That means it can’t create life.

As for this nonsense about “transitional forms,” guess what? No evolutionist is expecting such forms to exist. We are more than delighted that they don’t. Bwahahahaha! One of the strongest expectations the theory of evolution gives us is that transitional forms of the kind creationists are so proud to be able to hurl at us should not exist. Their non-existence is one more proof of the success of evolutionary theory and one more proof that creationists don’t know what the fluck they are talking about. Look at Teck with egg on his face! Dinosaur egg, of course. He’s quickly trying to recover from this latest blow to his pet argument. He’ll deny it of course and maybe quote some religious “scientist” who admits to being baffled by the lack of “transitional forms.” Give it a rest.

See, there’s a difference between “transitional” forms as creationists mean it and intermediate forms, which is what evolutionists study and discuss. I repeat: transitional forms should not exist. Intermediate forms should and do. So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, and between reptiles and mammals that God is beginning to doubt his own existence. He’s already come over to the evolutionist side.

P.S. I showed God this post before putting it up and this is what he said. “Your post succeeds quite brilliantly. Again and again it brings home the nature and force of evolutionary thinking in a way that I have never seen or felt previously. I pity the poor Teck who thinks otherwise.”

Wow. I’m now a believer.

This is getting really sad. This sounds like a closing argument based on an unwanted opinion with no basis in fact rather than pointing out these mountains of evidence in support of your precious theory. You like the rest continue to dodge the main Question, Where is the Evidence? All you do is sweat your fingers by constantly repeating the claim that there is many, yet like every other time you fall short of pointing them out. Why did you avoid my question when i asked you to inform me about the evidence at the University of Michigan? If i said this university carried concrete evidence to support creationism i would be flooding this thread with that evidence right about now. So why do you still hide it? Obviously you know what this evidence is otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it. Im still waiting. Or is it what it really is, a scapegoat?

Why should I reply to a lie such as 'No evolutionist expects transitional fossils to exist" when countless of them have acknowledged that there are none and that if evolution did happen the fossil record should contain many of them? I can quote many evolutionists to back me up on this not CREATIONISTS. Why does every evolution believer carry a different definition of Evolution? Because desperation breeds confusion leading to ones own self-defeat. You are contradicting the belief of many evolutionists who are still in search of transitional fossils.

Why should I reply to an attack on Creationism when Evolution and its evidence are being Questioned? You, Illum. Glock and Duke go on about Creationism as if I dont know what means and what it offers. Why shift the focus? Why bother with all this? Why are you wasting your time and my time? Are we ever going to discuss the evidence for Evolution or just imaginary claims?

I asked God to open up a portal for me to where Darwin is right now so i could ask him these questions and his reply was, young man what are you talking about? i made peace with God on my death bed before i went. And went on to talk about his theory and this is what he had to say, and I Quote Darwin

MY theory of evolution that life on Earth came about as the result of chance and emerged by itself from natural conditions is not a scientific law and will never be a proven fact. Underneath its scientific facade it is a materialist worldview that i was trying to impose on society. The bases of my theory, which will be disproved by science in every field, are suggestions and propaganda methods consisting of deceptions, falsehood, contradiction, cheating, and sleight of hand.

My theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis in the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth century, and as I have been observing every new discovery from my time to this day it has and still not been backed up by any scientific discovery or experiment. On the contrary, all the methods employed to confirm the theory have merely proven its invalidity.

However, even today as I look down on my puppets from above, I am amazed and shocked to find that many of them still think that my theory is a proven fact, They still do not know what rotten foundations my theory has, how it is disproved by science at every turn, and how my idiot followers are trying to keep it alive in its death throes. My puppets have no other support than unconfirmed hypotheses, biased and unrealistic observations, and imaginary drawings, methods of psychological suggestion, countless falsehoods, and sleight-of-hand techniques. As I stated at the beginning, the true nature of my theory of evolution was to impose on society a materialist worldview and it has done its job.

Charles Darwin -- 1809-1882...... Said - Sept. 14th 2006

Just because we don't have perfect information for every change that has ever taken place in all species does not invalidate evolutionary theory.

You dont have information on a change of a single creature let alone all species.

 

[Jokerman]

Why did you avoid my question when i asked you to inform me about the evidence at the University of Michigan? If i said this university carried concrete evidence to support creationism i would be flooding this thread with that evidence right about now.

What, should I shove bones in your face through the internet? Would you know what you are looking at anyway? No. Sorry, but there are no internet pictures; you have to go there and then you'd have to take the word of the experts, which you will never do. So what's the point? Life today is clearly different from what it was long ago. If you agree with that, you believe in evolution. It's as simple as that.

As for the rest of your reply, typical or confusing. I don't know why you quoted Darwin. His existence is clearly just a theory.

 

[Glockmatic]

I asked God to open up a portal for me to where Darwin is right now so i could ask him these questions and his reply was, young man what are you talking about? i made peace with God on my death bed before i went. And went on to talk about his theory and this is what he had to say, and I Quote Darwin

Darwin NEVER recanted evolution or converted to christianity before he died, even christian apologetic sites (such as Answers in Genesis) have stated http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

I guess the world IS the center of the universe, Galileo recanted it so i guess his theory is just CRAZY

 

[Duke]

Teck needs to brush up on his knowledge of the "real" modern theory of evolution, especially that stupid "there is no evidence where are the transitional fossils yammer":

http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html

"This article addresses one of the unfortunate failings of "creation science" that has turned into an eternally repeated mantra by creationists, despite being quite directly wrong. That is the mantra that "there are no transitional fossils"; it simply is not true. This oft-repeated fallacy does not agree with what paleontologists actually know. What follows is a full citation of the section entitled "Effect of Transitional Fossils on Taxonomic Practises", from the article "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution", by Roger J. Cuffey, published in the book "Science and Creationism", edited by Ashley Montagu; Oxford University Press 1984. The article originally appeared in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 24(4), December, 1972. I will make comments following the text. "

Begin quote

A few remarks are also appropriate about the theological implications of evolution as demonstrated by sequences of transitional fossils. As the reader may have noted, theological considerations do not enter at all into our demonstration of evolution as a very highly probable scientific conclusion. Consequently, like other scientific conclusions, this one cannot be viewed as inherently either pro- or anti-Christian. However, of course, Christians - especially theologians - will need to integrate evolutionary process into their views as being the proximate means which God uses to create various forms of life, just as He uses other scientifically demonstrable processes to maintain the natural universe.
Conclusion
In summary, the paleontologic record displays numerous sequences of transitional fossils, oriented appropriately within the independently derivable geochronologic time framework, and morphologically and chronologically connecting earlier species with later species (often so different that the end-members are classified in different high-rank taxa). These sequences quite overwhelmingly support an evolutionary, rather than a fiat-creationist, view of the history of life. Consequently, after carefully considering the implications of the fossil record, we must conclude that that record represents the remains of gradually and continuously evolving, ancestor-descendent lineages, uninterrupted by special creative acts, and producing successive differernt species which eventually become so divergent from the initial form that they constitute new major kinds of organisms. End quote

Even simple Wikipedia tells you this:

A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits certain primitive (or basal) traits in comparison with its more derived descendants. "Missing link" is a popular term used for transitional forms. According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight.

When Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known, and the claim that there was a lack of transitional fossils was perfectly reasonable; indeed, Darwin stressed in his work that this lack was the most formidable obstacle to his theory. However, the discovery of Archaeopteryx only two years later was seen as a triumph for Darwin's theory of common descent. Gaps remain in the fossil record, however; and while some argue that this is a problem for evolutionary theory, most scientists accept that the rarity of fossils means that many extinct animals will always remain unknown. (See fossil)

But I guess you don't consider the work of literate, learned people as "proof". You really do want someone to show up at your house with a pile of dino bones and a family tree.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Darwin NEVER recanted evolution or converted to christianity before he died, even christian apologetic sites (such as Answers in Genesis) have stated http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

I guess the world IS the center of the universe, Galileo recanted it so i guess his theory is just CRAZY

LOL what? did people really actually believe he made peace with god before he died? I didnt know that and I came up with it bahaha

 

[TecK NeeX]

What, should I shove bones in your face through the internet? Would you know what you are looking at anyway? No. Sorry, but there are no internet pictures; you have to go there and then you'd have to take the word of the experts, which you will never do. So what's the point?

Do you even know whats in this university? Tell me of something that is equally important and big as evidence of evolution I can't find on the internet. If you can I will buy myself a plane ticket and fly my ass to Michigan.

Believe it or not, The only thing I could find during my research regarding evolution and the university was coming across an Evolution critic named John P Marcus who holds a PhD in Biological Chemistry from the University of Michigan. Haha

Life today is clearly different from what it was long ago. If you agree with that, you believe in evolution. It's as simple as that.

This is one of many definitions of Evolution that I agree with you on.

I don't know why you quoted Darwin. His existence is clearly just a theory.

Unlike his theory, The theory of his existence has evidence that suggests he did exist at one point

 

[TecK NeeX]

Teck needs to brush up on his knowledge of the "real" modern theory of evolution, especially that stupid "there is no evidence where are the transitional fossils yammer":

http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html

Again this guy falls short of naming these Transitional fossils. You know why? because everyone knows that the fossils they keep reffering to are the "Archaeopteryx", "Lucy" "Homo Habilis" "Homo Erectus" and few others. These have long been disregarded as Transitional fossils But some like to hold on to the belief that they are. Their ignorance prevents them from accepting this fact.

However, some do accept this fact yet remain evolutionists.

British paleontologist/evolutionist, Derek V. Ager.

"The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another."

Also, paleontologist/Evolutionist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

Living Fossils The theory of evolution claims that species continuously evolve into other species. But when we compare living things to their fossils, we see that they have remained unchanged for millions of years. This fact is a clear evidence that falsifies the claims of some evolutionists.

The living honeybee is no different than its fossil relative, which is millions of years old.

The 135 million year old dragon fly fossil is no different than its modern counterparts

A comparison of ant fossil aged 100 million years and an ant living in our day clearly indicates that ants do not have any evolutionary history

Notice how I'm quoting Evolutionists not creationists

Even simple Wikipedia tells you this:

The fact that Wikipedia lists the Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil shows how far back in time they are. LOL

In the article "Tim Beardsley, “Fossil Bird Shakes Evolutionary Hypotheses,” Nature, Vol. 322, 21 August 1986, p. 677." states

One article reveals that the fossils of normal birds have been found in older rock strata than Archaeopteryx. Therefore, either Archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil (since birds already existed at the same time and there was nothing to “transition” into) or rock strata can not be accurately dated. If either of these is correct (and one must be) Archaeopteryx loses its value as a transitional species.

And i need to brush up on my knowledge of the "real" modern theory of evolution? Oh My

But I guess you don't consider the work of literate, learned people as "proof". You really do want someone to show up at your house with a pile of dino bones and a family tree.

Yes these people are clearly learned. and Umm who said i dont believe dinosaurs existed?

We've discussed these before and im not in the mood and dont have the patience to do it again, unless you people bring something new I'm done here.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Also, Notice the Bias towards Evolution in sites like Wikipedia etc? They list the so-called evidence supporting the theory of Evolution yet nothing can be found in these websites about the evidence against the theory. Oh yeah wikipedia is very fair and unbiased.

 

[Glockmatic]

The fact that Wikipedia lists the Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil shows how far back in time they are. LOL

MY MIND IS BOGGLED

 

[TecK NeeX]

MY MIND IS BOGGLED

Yes I know, Truth does tend to boggle the mind

And what I meant by that is The Archaeopteryx was discovered just 3 years after Darwins death, over 100 years ago and was quickly labeled a transitional fossil. The newer discoveries that suggest the fossil is not are much more recent yet wikipedia lists it as such while not mentioning the newer evidence that says its not at all.

 

[Jokerman]

"A few remarks are also appropriate about the theological implications of evolution as demonstrated by sequences of transitional fossils. As the reader may have noted, theological considerations do not enter at all into our demonstration of evolution as a very highly probable scientific conclusion. Consequently, like other scientific conclusions, this one cannot be viewed as inherently either pro- or anti-Christian. However, of course, Christians - especially theologians - will need to integrate evolutionary process into their views as being the proximate means which God uses to create various forms of life, just as He uses other scientifically demonstrable processes to maintain the natural universe.

Conclusion
In summary, the paleontologic record displays numerous sequences of transitional fossils, oriented appropriately within the independently derivable geochronologic time framework, and morphologically and chronologically connecting earlier species with later species (often so different that the end-members are classified in different high-rank taxa). These sequences quite overwhelmingly support an evolutionary, rather than a fiat-creationist, view of the history of life. Consequently, after carefully considering the implications of the fossil record, we must conclude that that record represents the remains of gradually and continuously evolving, ancestor-descendent lineages, uninterrupted by special creative acts, and producing successive differernt species which eventually become so divergent from the initial form that they constitute new major kinds of organisms."

Who the hell could understand that? Morphologically and chronologically, overwhelmingly; Consequently and continuously; eventually, evolutionary, independently and appropriately.

And in conclusion: inherently and especially.

 

[TecK NeeX]

^ You forgot Theologically

 

[Glockmatic]

Yes I know, Truth does tend to boggle the mind

And what I meant by that is The Archaeopteryx was discovered just 3 years after Darwins death, over 100 years ago and was quickly labeled a transitional fossil. The newer discoveries that suggest the fossil is not are much more recent yet wikipedia lists it as such while not mentioning the newer evidence that says its not at all.

it was discovered 2 years after the Origin of Species was published, Darwin was still alive then

btw, i meant a person who has beliefs in a 1300 year old ideology saying something is far back in time boggles the mind

 

[TecK NeeX]

it was discovered 2 years after the Origin of Species was published, Darwin was still alive then

My bad, In this case its over a 140 years old not a 100, thank you for that correction

btw, i meant a person who has beliefs in a 1300 year old ideology saying something is far back in time boggles the mind

Science changes over time, So you would have to keep up with these newer findings. Religion doesnt, well I do believe they should if something within the religion is proved wrong.

 

[Duke]

Who the hell could understand that? Morphologically and chronologically, overwhelmingly; Consequently and continuously; eventually, evolutionary, independently and appropriately.

And in conclusion: inherently and especially.

Well, Teck certainly couldn't. :laugh:

 

[Duke]

Again this guy falls short of naming these Transitional fossils. You know why? because everyone knows that the fossils they keep reffering to are the "Archaeopteryx", "Lucy" "Homo Habilis" "Homo Erectus" and few others. These have long been disregarded as Transitional fossils But some like to hold on to the belief that they are. Their ignorance prevents them from accepting this fact.

You didn't even read the page, did you?

"Similarly, we also tend to refer transitional fossils to that higher taxon which the most resemble or to which their final representatives belong. Consequently, the fact that we are dealing with continuously gradational sequences may be obscured by our conventional practise of superimposing artificially discontinuous, higher rank taxonomic boundaries across such lineages (Olson, 1965, p. 100-101, 202-203; Van Morkhoven, 1962, p. 105, 153; Williams, 1953, p. 29; Cuffey, 1967, p. 38-39). As a result, for example, in the middle of sequences of transitional fossils bridging the conceptual gaps between the various vertebrate classes, we find forms which sit squarely on the dividing line between these high-rank taxa and which can be referred to either of two. In addition to Archaeopteryx between reptiles and birds (discussed previously), we can also note Diarthrognathus between reptiles and mammals, the seymouriamorphs between amphibians and reptiles, and Elpistostege between fishes and amphibians (see references in Table 5). "

However, some do accept this fact yet remain evolutionists.

British paleontologist/evolutionist, Derek V. Ager.

"The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another."

Also, paleontologist/Evolutionist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

Living Fossils The theory of evolution claims that species continuously evolve into other species. But when we compare living things to their fossils, we see that they have remained unchanged for millions of years. This fact is a clear evidence that falsifies the claims of some evolutionists.

The living honeybee is no different than its fossil relative, which is millions of years old.

The 135 million year old dragon fly fossil is no different than its modern counterparts

A comparison of ant fossil aged 100 million years and an ant living in our day clearly indicates that ants do not have any evolutionary history

Notice how I'm quoting Evolutionists not creationists





The fact that Wikipedia lists the Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil shows how far back in time they are. LOL

In the article "Tim Beardsley, “Fossil Bird Shakes Evolutionary Hypotheses,” Nature, Vol. 322, 21 August 1986, p. 677." states

One article reveals that the fossils of normal birds have been found in older rock strata than Archaeopteryx. Therefore, either Archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil (since birds already existed at the same time and there was nothing to “transition” into) or rock strata can not be accurately dated. If either of these is correct (and one must be) Archaeopteryx loses its value as a transitional species.

And i need to brush up on my knowledge of the "real" modern theory of evolution? Oh My



Yes these people are clearly learned. and Umm who said i dont believe dinosaurs existed?

We've discussed these before and im not in the mood and dont have the patience to do it again, unless you people bring something new I'm done here.

Christ, how hard is it to understand what is being said in that Wiki entry? Transitional fossil in itself is a misconception. It's the fundi's, like you, that bring it up under the banner of "there are none!". Indeed, there are none. Very perceptive.

Those two other guys you quoted out of the blue said nothing that is out of the ordinary. Derek V. Ager's comment doesn't really add anything except a second theory. Czarnecki's statement says what it says, but isn't conclusive. Sure, bees haven't changed. Other animals did.

No point is being made by you. You refuted nothing. You tried to debunk points I didn't even make.

One article reveals that the fossils of normal birds have been found in older rock strata than Archaeopteryx. Therefore, either Archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil (since birds already existed at the same time and there was nothing to “transition” into) or rock strata can not be accurately dated. If either of these is correct (and one must be) Archaeopteryx loses its value as a transitional species.

Ok...this has relevance because? Archae. was A link, not THE link.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf048/sf048p11.htm

This new information merely challenges the fact that Archea was the first "link" between birds and dinosaurs. An on itself silly statement since there wouldn't be something like a definite, absolute, single link. It only says that there may be a bird like creature found that was older than Archea. So? No serious evolutionist would argue the existence and place in time of Archea was conclusive evidence of birds suddenly evolving from dinosaurs. Again, you debunked nothing.

And even Protoavis' legitimacy is disputed.


Here's the wiki link for Protoavis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoavis)


Here's a simple Google result from Berkeley uni(http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html) , not the least of sources I'd say:

Protoavis: A Revolution in Bird Evolution?


The paleontologist Sankar Chatterjee has recently described the fossil Protoavis, from Late Triassic deposits in Texas. Chatterjee claims that Protoavis is a true bird that is actually closer to modern birds than Archaeopteryx. If this is true, this would push the origin of birds back by about 80 million years. It would also show that the first birds lived at the same time as the earliest dinosaurs -- which could disprove or force modification of the standard hypothesis that birds are descended from the highly derived coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which are not known from the Triassic. This would require major rewriting of the evolutionary history of the birds and dinosaurs alike. Is Chatterjee right? One problem with Protoavis is that the bones were not found in an articulated skeleton, and had to be pieced together. In this situation, there is always the possibility of mixing up bones from different organisms. This has happened often enough in the past to make many paleontologists wary when discussing Protoavis. Dr. Kevin Padian of the UC Museum of Paleontology believes that Protoavis is probably a mixture of two or more different skeletons, and several other paleontologists concur in this interpretation. Other paleontologists accept Protoavis as a single organism but put its birdlike features down to convergent evolution: Protoavis might be an early dinosaur or other diapsid that had evolved some birdlike features but was not on the lineage leading directly to modern birds. Several other Triassic diapsids, including forms not directly related to the archosaurs, show some convergent features with birds. The true story of Protoavis will probably remain a controversial topic for paleontologists for quite some time.

In the big picture of this debate, your previous comments refuted absolutely zilch.