Humans evolved from an ape creature.. lol that's a joke to me
|
Humans evolved from an ape creature.. lol that's a joke to me
I've reduced you to a basic troll at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Okay pay attention to the following two quotes from sassyt:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SassyT
Obviously, she is soooo confused that she can't remember which area she is studying. Or could it be that she is lying? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SassyT
And SassyT the following in green are all questions that you have been asked on this board that you have NOT answered. So do you think you could answer them or are you clueless to the answers yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Quote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
Quote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
Quote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
Quote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
[QUOTE]First of all you are jumping into an argument that you have no clue what the beginnings were. WVH said evolution was a FACT and since then I have been argueing the fact that there is no sufficient evidence to qualify the THEORY of evolution as fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Second because you assume evolution is true therefore you have come to the conclusion that the gene similarity in all living things proves evolution is true. However that is a circular argument.
The similarity in gene between species could very well be due to a common genetic Engineer or Designer i.e God. If God creates living things that are going to inhabit the same environment, isn't it logical that he would create them with a similar DNA coding?
It just come down to this:
"Dogs must breathe the same air as humans." People who believe in Creation, therefore, believe that the Creator designed similar lungs for both dogs and humans to breath the same air. The evolutionists believe that dogs and humans have similar lungs because they are related from millions of years ago. So the similarity argument is a weak one because it also make a strong case for Creation.
Actually like I have said before the fossil record actually refutes evolution because all fossils found thus far are fully formed and show no evidence of ancestoral or transitional forms. I am sorry to be the one to break this to you but there is NO chronological fossil record of the transitions from amoeba to man. If there was we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would be an irrefuatable fact. But unfortunately for evolutionist, those emaginary transitional animals' fossils just don't exist. This is what they call the "missing link". Believing in Darwin’s prophecy, evolutionists have been searching for fossils and digging for missing links since the middle of the 19th century all over the world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations show that contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.Quote:
Do you reject the 3.8 billion year old fossil record, which shows a page by page history of Life on Earth beginning with simple bacteria, progressing to photosynthetic bacteria, multicellular creatures like sponges and jellyfish, and then eventually early marine arthropods (similar to shrimp and lobsters), fish, amphibians, reptiles,and mammals, not to mention the well documented history of the evolution of plants. What exactly do you think the fossil record is if not a history of evolution?
I don't reject the evidence of similarity but I do reject the conclusion you make because of it. Your conclution is based on your belief in theory.Quote:
Do you reject all the evidence that shows that plants and animals that are related develop from fertilized eggs to embryos to adults in similar fashion, while unrelated organisms develop more differently from one another?
Again that only proves common ancestry if you assume evolution is true. Similarity again makes a case for a common creator creating species and plants that inhabit the same environment.Quote:
Do you reject he biogeographical evidence that shows that plants and animals that have lived close to one another for long periods are more likely to be closely related (by other measures) than those that have been long divided by distance or impassible barriers such as rivers or oceans?
Yes this is called micro evolution which is the adaptations and changes within a species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. This theory takes the leap and concludes that these changes can create a totally different species, a leap of faith I am not willing to take.Quote:
Do you reject the decades of work that shows that small populations of plants and animals can evolve in just a few years when selection pressure is high--for example Peter and Rosemary Grant's work on Galapagos finches, showing that average beak size changes in just a few years when access to large or small seeds in limited by short term changes in local climate?
I have an undergrad in Biology and Chemistry so I know what I am talking about. I am currently working on my masters in Biology and my goal is to become an activist against the hoax of darwinism. I have done my own studdies and have come to my own conclusions which are more consistent with the facts and there are millions of intelligent educated men and women who agree with me.Quote:
What are your credentials Sassy that you, by yourself, reject the lifetime work and thoughts of thousands of educated and intelligent men and women?
You seriously need to do a little more research on your beliefs because you are obviously under the delution that all of transitional fossils that should exists if evoltion was true, are actually there. The few fossils that evolution claims to be "transitional" are highly questionable and a lot of them have turned out to be frauds. If such animals had really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than the present animal species and their remains should be found all over the world. These fossils do not exist.Quote:
This is nonsense. Evolutionary biologists ALWAYS want more fossils to reveal the details of the evolution of some snail or butterfly. But NO biologist would ever say there is a lack of fossil evidence to support evolution. (And you should look up "theory" as it's used in science. It is the same as a physicist's LAW--to use your caps.) The fossil record, laid down era by era, is unimpeachable physical evidence for evolution.
I know there are fossils and I see fossils all the time. Just saying there are fossils does not prove evolution Asking. ALL the fossils you are talking about are fully formed animals, not transitional forms so that proves nothing for evolution.Quote:
This is nearly funny. If you want to see fossil evidence with your own eyes, go to a seum of paleontology. You can buy ancient fossils at any gem show. If you can't get anywhere to see and handle fossils in real life, read a book about fossils or read online. Fossils exist and are laid down in layers like the pages of a book, the oldest layers are deepest underground--like at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, while the youngest layers are on top (unless the layers have been folded by geologic forces).
So the theory of evolution goes, but there is no chronological fossil evidence to prove this. Do your research.Quote:
The deep old layers contains living things that are all simple, one-celled organisms. But as you "turn the pages" and go forward in time, more complex life appears, along with the simple bacteria that have continued to live and evolve for billions of years. Over time, species multiply--becoming more numerous, and they become different from one another over time--creating the DIVERSITY of life we know today. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is Darwin and Wallace's theory that explains how it works--a theory supported by every conceivable kind of evidence.
.. lol... :D achampio21 can you answer this question for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
Do you know that Biology is science?. tut tut tut
Trust me. I have a clue. I don't need to read every word you've written.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
No. I don't assume it. I know it from study and logic. There are lots of things I take, to a degree, on faith. For example, if an engineer says a certain bridge needs to be built to certain specifications, I'll take his or her word. But this isn't like that. I actually know how it works.Quote:
Second because you assume evolution is true therefore you have come to the conclusion that the gene similarity in all living things proves evolution is true. However that is a circular argument.
Two species can share similar features in two ways, either because they inherited them from a common ancestor, or because they each evolved them separately to fulfill the same function. So insects and birds both evolved wings. But their wings are different from each other. You are saying that God gave dogs and humans the same kinds of lungs because they are just a part, like a bicycle wheel he can put anywhere. So why don't lungless salamanders, which live on land, have lungs too? They could use some! And why don't the unrelated birds and insects have the same kind of wings? By your theory, you should see no pattern of shared traits and no way to tell which animals are related to one another. Instead, you see repeating patterns. All the animals that have backbones also share a long list of other traits, like similar kidneys, a skull, similar circulations, etc. Meanwhile, all the insects have a long list of similar traits the DON'T share with animals with backbones.
Virtually EVERY fossil in the last 3.8 billion years is a transition from one thing to another. The amphibians are a transition from the fish to the amniotes (reptiles and mammals). Eohippus is a transition to the horse. All the early hominoids are transitions to humans. There are hundreds of thousands of transition species IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.Quote:
Actually like I have said before the fossil record actually refutes evolution because all fossils found thus far are fully formed and show no evidence of ancestoral or transitional forms.
We aren't descended from amoebas, Sassy. We are descended from bacteria.Quote:
I am sorry to be the one to break this to you but there is NO chronological fossil record of the transitions from amoeba to man.
It IS an irrefutable fact if you actually look at the evidence.. But that doesn't prevent you from arguing against it for whatever reason. I could insist that the City of New York does not exist and that it's a hoax and has never existed and that there's no evidence for its existence. I could do that for days, weeks, years. But that would not make me right.Quote:
If there was we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would be an irrefuatable fact.
To satisfy your criteria, you would have to see the skeleton of every single individual animal and a fossil of every plant, bacterium, protist, and fungus that has every lived on Earth--billions upon billions of fossils. It wouldn't be enough to see all the transition fossils, you'd want each cavewoman's grandma too, or they wouldn't count and it would be special creation. Maybe you yourself are not related to anyone? How do you know you are really your mother's daughter or son, and not just specially created? Since you assume species are unrelated to one another, then you should assume you are unrelated to anyone. It's the same reasoning. You either believe in descent and family or you don't.Quote:
But unfortunately for evolutionist, those emaginary transitional animals' fossils just don't exist. This is what they call the "missing link".
Darwin was NOT a prophet. This is a grotesque usage. Darwin was a scientist who had an idea, spent many decades doubting it and testing and finding ways for it to be wrong and overcoming them all to produce vast of amounts of data that showed that it was almost certainly not wrong, but in fact correct.Quote:
Believing in Darwin's prophecy,
Right. And there's no New York City either.Quote:
evolutionists have been searching for fossils and digging for missing links since the middle of the 19th century all over the world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations show that contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.
If macroevolution had not occurred, you would not be here arguing. You are descended from a salamander, and probably a very cute one. Get over it. Please go to some museums, look at some fossils and start putting it together--not just individual ones, as you acknowledge yourself, but the whole miraculous PATTERN of evolution. It's there waiting for you. You obviously have the intelligence and stick-to-itiveness to get it.Quote:
Yes this is called micro evolution which is the adaptations and changes within a species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. This theory takes the leap and concludes that these changes can create a totally different species, a leap of faith I am not willing to take.
Did you use the Panda's Thumb as your bio textbook?Quote:
I have an undergrad in Biology and Chemistry so I know what I am talking about. I am currently working on my masters in Biology and my goal is to become an activist against the hoax of darwinism. I have done my own studdies and have come to my own conclusions which are more consistent with the facts and there are millions of intelligent educated men and women who agree with me.
Again, what school are you at? I'm not interested in you personally. I just want to know what school would abuse its students so by teaching them what your teachers are teaching you (or not).
There are millions of ignorant Americans who agree with you, and you may have a few other students at your school who have been similarly duped. But get out in the world and you will discover that educated people around the world, all as capable as you at examining evidence and drawing conclusions, in fact do not agree with you. American militant Creationism is a bizarre anomaly nearly unknown in the rest of the educated world.
They are! Have you ever actually gone and looked at the fossil collection in a research museum? They have so many individual fossils, it will amaze you. And, YES, they include thousands of transition species. It is so cool.Quote:
More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record.
Sassy, you must surely know that every individual organism was not preserved in the fossil record, anymore than you have retained the stub of every pencil you have ever used or kept every homework assignment you have done since kindergarten. Not everything gets preserved. But what's there is an amazingly complete AND CONSISTENT record of the history of life on Earth. The pattern is obvious, consistent on a small scale, consistent over billions of years. Evolution is not remotely controversial among biologists. You are hanging with the conspiracy theorists who think we never landed on the moon, the world is flat, and there is no New York City.Quote:
The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than the present animal species and their remains should be found all over the world. These fossils do not exist.
If you reject the work of all paleontologists as non existent, why do you ACCEPT the work of geneticists? Why the inconsistency? If scientists are all lying and deceitful and making every thing up, why believe one group without question while rejecting the entire body of work of another group?Quote:
so the theory of evolution goes, but there is no chronological fossil evidence to prove this. Do your research.
Hopefully it won't be too irritating if I repost something I posted elsewhere in response to a serious question about the evidence for evolution. The evidence really is independent and each line of evidence independently supports the others. It is not circular as sassy claims. The only way around this is if God is deliberately trying to make it LOOK as if evolution occurred while simultaneously not allowing evolution to occur. And that would be a very strange God indeed. But I do understand that many people have such views.
Quote:
Lines of evidence for descent from a common ancestor include:
1. Comparative morphology.
For example, many animals share the same anatomy, which would not be expected if they were not related to one another. Just as cousins in the same family might have the same straight blond hair or curly, red hair, etc, related animals might both have the same hip construction, even though there are other ways the hip could have been constructed and would still work. Different kinds of pine trees have similar needles and long lists of other shared traits--because they are related to one another.
2. Comparative molecular biology:
The same is true at the molecular level, where the more related two organisms, the more alike their biochemistry is. They use the same proteins to do the same things.
3. Comparative genetics:
Related organisms, as measured by morphology or molecules can be shown to share genes. And just as closely related organisms have similar anatomy, molecules and genes, unrelated organisms are usually very different from one another.
4. Development. As plants and animals develop from fertilized eggs into embryos and then into adults, they pass through predictable stages of development. Same story: Those that are most closely related develop similarly.
All of these lines of evidence that show HOW we are related also show that we ARE related. Humans are animals with backbones, so we share at least some common anatomies and genes and molecules with all other vertebrates--fish, frogs, dinosaurs, and mammals. For example, we all have a backbone and a brain encased in a skull and all vertebrates have their main nerve cord (the spinal cord) in the back. For comparison, insects have their main nerve cord in their belly.
And yet humans and other vertebrates also share some genes with insects and even yeasts--which are a kind of fungus. We are not very related to yeasts, but we do share genes with them because both yeasts and humans are descended from a common ancestor. There is no evidence against this idea--that we are all related--but thousands upon thousands of scientific discoveries that support it. That is why scientists now accept that living things are all related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Apparently you need to be reminded that a scientific theory is NOT a hypothesis, but a generally accepted body of evidence reached by actually investigating hypotheses. Since you seem so concerned with facts it's about time you got this one right.
I've dealt with the same lack of understand and what I call intentional ignorance for 20 yrs. Do you remember Prodigy (bulletin bd)? I argued against the same insubstantial arguments against evolution there. The same habit of misquoting, quoting out of context, insisting that acceptance of evidence equals 'faith,' refusal to accept that the word 'theory' has a different connotation for scientists than laymen, etc was in use then. All that's changed is now a claim of a 'designer' instead of God (disengenuous since they really mean the same thing to proponents).Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Oh, and one more change - the evidence of evolution just keeps getting more in-depth and comprehensive...
No, you didn't bother because you might find out something new. See www.pbs.org/wbgh/nova/id/transitional.html Here's the opening paragraph for a vid that starts the site: Fossil EvidenceQuote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
In 2004, a field crew digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed the fossil remains of a half-fish, half-amphibian that would all but confirm paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including us) evolved from their fish ancestors. The animal was a so-called lobe-finned fish that lived about 375 million years ago. Named Tiktaalik rosae by its discoverers, it is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges the evolutionary gap between two quite different types of animal. In this slide show, see this and four other well-known fossil transitions, which clearly indicate Darwinian evolution in action.—Rima Chaddha
Feathers and scales have been shown to come from exactly the same place. In addition, feathers, in one hypothesis (yes, as yet unproven) that they might have afforded an insulation to dinosaurs - at least while still young.Quote:
Furthermore feathers develop from a different part of the bird’s embryo than scales do from a reptile’s embryo. Therefore, a person who supports the theory of evolution would have to show how one could have replaced the other in an evolutionary manner—without violating the rules of biology.
Hmmm... cake and eat it too. How can something you claim is nonexistent support both models? (Untrue, BTW, since there is no evidence for the creation model)Quote:
The problem with "transitional fossils" is that they do not distinguish between the evolution and creation models.. .
To do that requires a series of fossils that show the development of a new adaptation. Those fossils are non existent.
No, because you refuse to actually try to learn and are satisfied with parroting long since discredited information. And no where have I stated my 'beliefs'...Quote:
so just because I don't agree with your beliefs I have "closed little mind"? Nice...
Nice post! But I fear Sassy will demand the two transition fossils, one on either side of this fossil, one linking it to fish and one linking it to amphibians... Plus lobefinned lung fish that live today are already examples of such forms, aren't they?--although obviously, being extant, they are not our ancestors.
In general, the more biology we know, the more "unknowns" a determined creationist can invoke to prove that "biologists don't know everything" and therefore know nothing.
Asking
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
[QUOTE=sassyT]I never once said that. I said it's as much a fact as Earth orbiting Sun.Quote:
WVH said evolution was a FACT
It's not a circular argument, and it doesn't prove evolution. It does, however, provide evidence of evolution.Quote:
Second because you assume evolution is true therefore you have come to the conclusion that the gene similarity in all living things proves evolution is true. However that is a circular argument.
This, I think, is much closer to the definition of 'circular argument.'Quote:
The similarity in gene between species could very well be due to a common genetic Engineer or Designer i.e God. If God creates living things that are going to inhabit the same environment, isn't it logical that he would create them with a similar DNA coding?
It just come down to this:
"Dogs must breathe the same air as humans." People who believe in Creation, therefore, believe that the Creator designed similar lungs for both dogs and humans to breath the same air. The evolutionists believe that dogs and humans have similar lungs because they are related from millions of years ago. So the similarity argument is a weak one because it also make a strong case for Creation.
Quote:
so the theory of evolution goes, but there is no chronological fossil evidence to prove this. Do your research.
... I have done my own studdies and have come to my own conclusions which are more consistent with the facts and there are millions of intelligent educated men and women who agree with me.
It's too bad that your studies apparently have a single source. I don't call this 'study.' You conclusions aren't even closely related to the facts - merely to your apparently religiously biased accumulation of disinformation. That there are millions who agree does not make them correct.
As for macro evo - while I accept the evidence that already exists, more keeps coming in. One line of study now even helps support Gould's punctuated equilibrium. As we've all mentioned, with diff conclusions, very diff animals have very similar DNA. On top of that, the sequences for all these dissimilar animals are also similar. The anatomical dif, acc'd to studies in the past few years, is not the DNA itself but the genetic 'switches' that determine which protein gets coded when. And the 'enhancers,' for which each gene may have several, are particularly true when it comes to genes that shape anatomy. Meaning that individual body traits can appear without changes in the genes or their proteins. To quote an article by a group studying this: "[I]n the past few years, direct evidence has emerged that this is frequently how the evolution of various body parts and patterns has occurred." (Sean Carroll, Benjamin Prud'homme & Nicolas Gompel; Scientific American; May 2008) [I haven't finished the article yet, but I'm betting SassyT wouldn't even consider reading it... ]
Asking - my battle against creationists began in earnest 20 yrs ago. At first I tried merely to educate. Then I discovered they want to infiltrate science education. That's why I'm a sustaining member of NCSE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Um, yeah sassyt but do YOU know that Biology is only a part of science. The part that only studies plant and animal life. Whereas, science is study of the WHOLE physical world.
So are you a masters student of the WHOLE physical world or just a masters student of plant and animal life?
The following is an IM message from Sassyt to myself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plse stop embarrassing yourself.
Hey Sassy, it seems to me the only one embarrassing themselves on THIS post is YOU.
And the day that you tell me what to do and I listen will be the day that you are paying all my bills and sleeping in my bed. So I suggest you stop with your immature little IM's to those of us that don't agree with you. All it's doing is making you look childish. And I don't think it's a very christian thing what you are doing. If I were you I would ask God to forgive me for being so judgemental and ugly to the other people on this board. Unless of course you don't believe in God, then I guess it doesn't matter that you just sinned.
achampio21 - I'm usually a bit more observant... but I just noticed your sig. How very fitting for this topic...
WVHiflyer~
Thank you, I just changed it due to the unfortunate observation of a fellow member on this site. I figured I would embrace their immaturity and learn from it...
It's a pity that others can't do the same...
SassyT, Try this site if you're actually willing to study evolution: Understanding Evolution
I am a member too. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
These arguments sometimes seem pointless, but I agree that people need to challenge the disinformation, not let it stand unchallenged as if it were true.
Jonathan Wells was one creationist who actually went to Berkeley and got a PhD in biology specifically so that he could attack evolution. (He said so, although I wondered why he didn't study evolutionary biology instead of cell biology.) He TA'd the evolution course at Berkeley, and, according to the instructor, perfectly concealed his true feelings and taught well. After he graduated, Wells joined the Discovery Institute and made some potent attacks on mistakes in biology textbooks (not the same as mistakes in the science itself), but then doesn't seem to have been able to come up with any weaknesses in evolutionary theory itself, despite his 4 or 5 years of concerted study. At least I haven't heard anything from him.
I'm still curious about where Sassy goes to school.
Asking
To pick a nit, I just want to say that within the field of evolutionary biology, punctuated equilibrium wasn't considered really a new or controversial idea, at least not new with Gould. I personally checked this with an evolutionary biologist in about 1980 and he dismissed Gould as essentially a johnny come lately. Ernst Mayr made the same argument in his early textbooks on evolution, published, I think, in the 40s or 50s. He just didn't give the idea a fancy name. I specifically asked how Gould's ideas were different from Mayr's and my source said they were not different.Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
In any case, like Gould, Mayr earlier postulated rapid evolution in small, isolated populations, although no one had actually measured such rapid change. But now we have and can state unequivocally that evolution can occur very rapidly in small, genetically diverse, isolated populations under heavy selection pressure, oceanic islands being an obvious place for that kind of thing. That's why remote islands so often have such weird plants and animals on them. It's not just divine whimsy; there's a reason for it. E.g. the Galapagos Islands have a finch that drinks blood from other birds, a very unfinchlike behavior. They normally eat seeds!
So I wouldn't say "even." :)
A bit ago I dropped in on the NCSE site. That's where I found the Understanding Evo link. There's also a link for a comprehensive answer to Wells' Icons of Evolution: Introduction
Fighting against religious intolerance and for a proper education is never pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
If you don't assume, then why is "evolved" in your language to describe present evidence? It betrays your bias right from the start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
Your link does not work.
But here is the original article :
Access : : Nature
Notice how they start... they are being honest, because science has to be investigated... the headline cannot be believed on face value, because other scientists will look at the data, the methodology, the conclusion, and critique the paper.
There have been numerous rebuttals such asQuote:
The relationship of limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) to lobe-finned fish (sarcopterygians) is well established, but THE ORIGIN of major tetrapod features has remained obscure for LACK of fossils that document the sequence of evolutionary changes.
Quote:
"That is a strange statement for a scientific paper. It sounds something like, We know it’s true; we just lack evidence.
A technical description of parts ensues. Compared to the earlier known fossils, Tiktaalik has a larger this and a smaller that, etc. For all its impressive jargon, the technical description DOES NOT IN ITSELF ESTABLISH THE CASE THAT THE CREATURE WAS EVOLVING into a tetrapod. Data provide the hard evidence, but INTERPRETATIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE . Side-by-side skull comparisons do not look that informative, especially when there are no soft parts and no videos of how the creature actually lived. It must be remembered, for instance, that COELACANTH was long considered a transitional form because of its bony fins, but when discovered alive, THE FISH DID NOT USE THEM FOR WALKING OR RAISING ITSELF UP IN ANY WAY. Without soft parts such as gills and organs, and without living examples, interpretation of anatomy from bony parts alone is at best an exercise in EDUCATED GUESSWORK."
As to feathers and scales:
Access : : Nature
And the rebuttal:Quote:
The Absence of feathers or feather-like structures in a fossil phylogenetically nested within feathered theropods5, 6 indicates that the evolution of these integumentary structures might be MORE COMPLEX THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT.
Quote:
Problem? What problem? Scales are scales, and feathers are feathers. Dinosaurs are dinosaurs, and birds are birds. Before, evolutionists wanted us to believe that scales, a skin feature, evolved into feathers that are totally different and embedded beneath the skin. They expected us to believe there was a straight line of descent from gray wrinkles on a dinosaur into the colorful, aerodynamic, exquisitely-designed feathers of acrobatic swifts and high-diving cormorants. They asked us to believe that birds co-opted what appeared to be “integumentary structures” of doubtful utility on the legs and tails of some dinosaurs and turned them into flying wonders, complete with interlocking hooks and barbules that are lightweight, water-resistant and extremely adaptable (compare doves and penguins). They expected us to believe that at the same time feathers evolved, dinosaurs transformed all their internal organs and completely redesigned their lungs and most other bodily systems.
May I draw attention to the leading questions of this topic?
Seems to me that many here have strayed off the original topic ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
;)
I think we were just feeling free to react!Quote:
Seems to me that many here have strayed off the original topic...
I see Cred that all threads on this site stick to the OP ? :)
Let us see, Sassy T implies that belief in Evolution is "faith" ---- and I agree.
When I post links directly from noted science journals --there is your evidence that even "scientists " can see the evidence that questions evolutionary ASSUMPTIONS. :D
Yes, but there should always remain some connection to the topic, is it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
:D
That was not my point ! Sassy implies a lot of things by twisting words! I never stated that evolution is a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
I CLEARLY stated that there is a lot of objective supportive evidence for evolution and NONE for any religious claim!
:rolleyes:
Design,Complexity, Engineering marvels [ echolocation, flight, protein synthesis, compund eye, etc... ]
Cred
Pick up a science journal and read the DATA and come to your own conclusions..
That is IRRELEVANT in this lead!!Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
The point is that sassy is deliberately misinterpreting what others state, and post than these words in a twisted version to support his/her own wild religious claims.
Similar to what you do here!!
I never stated that evolution is a fact.
I CLEARLY stated that there is a lot of objective supportive evidence for evolution and NONE for any religious claim!
So if you like me to support evolution, than at least start supporting FIRST your own religious beliefs, as these do not carry one single iota of objective supported evidence !
:D
Objective supportive evidence, eh? I don't know about that but; Now this may be a strange thought, but I'm well known for that, so...Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
What about the stories?? Is not some ones' recount of a happening important to consider? We don't really know if they hyped up the truth or what ever may have happened, but if oyu think about it, there probably is some seeds of truth here and there in thoughs stories.
Objective supportive evidence is just another suggested idea is it not, I mean really maybe these creatures were just deforemd. Not evolving,but deformed from some kind of birthing defect, maybe the mother of them deforemd creatures was almost killed by another, thus stressing it, and creating complications, and such. No, no takers? Maybe we were really just here, or aliens brought us here to destroy the planet! Haha, just kidding, but I mean that this is all very elusive, unless we ourselves where there, we'll never really know will we?? SO any thing is a possibility, with in plosibility of course.
Take any dictionary, and look for objective... Stories are just as subjective as your or my personal beliefs of whatever subject or direction...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nestorian
No, not when considering OBJECTIVE supporting evidence !Quote:
Originally Posted by Nestorian
Why would that be? How can asking for reality or proof for reality be "just another idea"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nestorian
That only shows you to even take more reservations against empty unsupported claims !Quote:
Originally Posted by Nestorian
Many things are possible. But also are highly unlikely to happen. To separate the wheat from the chaff therefore you require facts and/or objective supporting evidence for wild claims. And that is precisely what I am doing and asking for all the time. Just making sure if someone BELIEVES something, or that he/she has information that shows that that belief is based on facts... so far it almost always is purely based on belief only...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nestorian
===
I just like to repeat what I stated to you before, but what you did not address :
I never stated that evolution is a fact.
I CLEARLY stated that there is a lot of objective supportive evidence for evolution and NONE for any religious claim!
So if you (or anyone else) likes me to support evolution, than at least start supporting FIRST your own religious beliefs (which most of you seem to hold as real facts), as these do not carry one single iota of objective supported evidence !
:rolleyes:
Meh. Things evolve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
;)
Cred,
Did you want a discussion about what constitutes evidence?
Asking
Tell that the creationists, not me ! LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
:D
.Quote:
ASKIN: No. I don't assume it. I know it from study and logic. There are lots of things I take, to a degree, on faith. For example, if an engineer says a certain bridge needs to be built to certain specifications, I'll take his or her word. But this isn't like that. I actually know how it works
Yes you know How the THEORY works but the theory is not necessarily a reality.
Yes based on the claims made by THEORY of evolution but, This is not factual.Quote:
Two species can share similar features in two ways, either because they inherited them from a common ancestor, or because they each evolved them separately to fulfill the same function.
Quote:
So insects and birds both evolved wings. But their wings are different from each other. You are saying that God gave dogs and humans the same kinds of lungs because they are just a part, like a bicycle wheel he can put anywhere. So why don't lungless salamanders, which live on land, have lungs too? They could use some! And why don't the unrelated birds and insects have the same kind of wings? By your theory, you should see no pattern of shared traits and no way to tell which animals are related to one another. Instead, you see repeating patterns. All the animals that have backbones also share a long list of other traits, like similar kidneys, a skull, similar circulations, etc. Meanwhile, all the insects have a long list of similar traits the DON'T share with animals with backbones.
Because you BELIEVE in evolution you see similariy in living things as evidence for ancestry. I however believe in creation therefore I see similarity as evidence for a common designer. Animals breath the same air we do so why wouldn't an intelligent designer create their lungs in a similar way?
If there were tranisitional fosils for every animal fossil why did Gould have to come up with the theory of puncuated equilibrium? Please do some research before you continue to embarrasse yourself with such outrageous claims that every fossil has a transitional ancestor. Unless of course you have found some in your back yard in which case you would need to share with the rest of the world.Quote:
Virtually EVERY fossil in the last 3.8 billion years is a transition from one thing to another. The amphibians are a transition from the fish to the amniotes (reptiles and mammals). Eohippus is a transition to the horse. All the early hominoids are transitions to humans. There are hundreds of thousands of transition species IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.
According to your faith yes, but there is no proof that that is FACT. There is no evidence that all living things evolved from a one cell creature that crawled out of a mythical soup and morphed into everything we see today. Those are your beliefs. I do not believe that.Quote:
We aren't descended from amoebas, Sassy. We are descended from bacteria.
There is irrefutable evidence that the city of NY exists but there is no fossil evidence to prove the theory of evolution is a fact.Quote:
It IS an irrefutable fact if you actually look at the evidence.. But that doesn't prevent you from arguing against it for whatever reason. I could insist that the City of New York does not exist and that it's a hoax and has never existed and that there's no evidence for its existence. I could do that for days, weeks, years. But that would not make me right.
Darwin believed that the lack of intermediate links in the fossil record was one of the weakest points in his theory. Instead of admitting that his theory was wrong, he blamed the "extreme imperfection of the geological record". This set off a mad search of the record for these "missing links" This mad search is still going on today as evolutionists are scouring China, with no sucsess,for the missing links. This is what dawin himself said..Quote:
Darwin was NOT a prophet. This is a grotesque usage. Darwin was a scientist who had an idea, spent many decades doubting it and testing and finding ways for it to be wrong and overcoming them all to produce vast of amounts of data that showed that it was almost certainly not wrong, but in fact correct.
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
-Origin of Species (292)
All I can say about you Asking is that you are a very Zealous believer because you actually under the delution that every fossil out there has a transitional ancestor. You Believe the theory of evolution is an irefutable fact but in reality it is a theory that is easily refutable because the fossil evidence is lacking. There are NO transitional fossils to qualify evolution as fact. So just because you have faith that it happened does not mean I should believe in it too. Those are your beliefs and until they find "the missing Link" I will researve my belief in the theory.Quote:
If macroevolution had not occurred, you would not be here arguing. You are descended from a salamander, and probably a very cute one. Get over it. Please go to some museums, look at some fossils and start putting it together--not just individual ones, as you acknowledge yourself, but the whole miraculous PATTERN of evolution. It's there waiting for you. You obviously have the intelligence and stick-to-itiveness to get it.
[QUOTE]Tiktaalik another so called "transitional fossil" lets examineQuote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
First of all there are a lot of fish—both living and fossilized. Approximately 25,000 species of currently living fish have been identified, with 200–300 new species being discovered—not evolved—every year. Many living fish are air-breathers and “walkers” air-breathing fish are not uncommon among living fish species. For example, many popular aquarium fish are surface air-breathers that can actually drown if kept under water! So Tiktaalik could easily belongs to a group of fish called lobe-fin fish. Tiktaalik is not unique in having these bones because other lobe-fish, such as “coelacanth” fish, also have them. Evolutionists say the lobe-fin fish became extinct millions of years ago until it was discovered in the waters of Madagascar.
Thus all the claims about Tiktaalik are mere smokescreens, exaggerating mere tinkering around the edges while huge gaps remain unbridged by evolution.
Quote:
Feathers and scales have been shown to come from exactly the same place. In addition, feathers, in one hypothesis (yes, as yet unproven) that they might have afforded an insulation to dinosaurs - at least while still young.
Go figure :rolleyes:
Your definition of my "learning" is I must believe what you believe. I have studied the theory of evolution and seen the lack of solid fossil evidence and therefore I just don't believe in it. Why is that so hard for you (and people like asking) to accept. I don't have to share the same beliefs as you do. The so called evidence for it is not convinsing to me because it highly speculative and too many pieces of the puzzel are missing. (missing link)Quote:
No, because you refuse to actually try to learn and are satisfied with parroting long since discredited information. And no where have I stated my 'beliefs'...
I just find it comical and I must say childish, that you call me "ignorant" just because I refuse to share the same beliefs as you... lol I am not ignorant, in fact I am very educated on Theory and I think it is a great theory but I just don't believe it is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I see your double standard.
When asking or vh1flyer make unsubstantiated evolutionary claims, and that is refuted by sassy or I, you evade your own "I believe when I see it " standard, and go own with your generalizations of the Bible and Christians.
I wonder why that is?
You see, proof or the evidence you seek of God, is in his creations.
Psalm 8, 19
If you do not believe the "proof" what are you left to believe in?
Evolution? Is that why it offends you --- scientific questioning of this theory?
What about pure chance, or extraterrestrial intelligence? Where is your "I believe it when I see it" proof there?
Lol... are you serious right now..?Quote:
ASKING: There are hundreds of thousands of transition species IN THE FOSSIL RECORD
Seriously guys someone, one of you evolutionists, needs to correct and/or school your friend here. She is sadly mislead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
You are correct, Christians should live lives that reflect God's love.
I do not view Sassy's post in the OP as rude. Sassy has as much a right to call into question what Credo believes as much as Credo calls into question what Christians believe.
All I am doing is holding Credo's claims to the same standards as he sets on Christians and the bottom line is his beliefs don't hold, not even for one second, to the standards he sets on other's beliefs. And yet he somehow thinks his beliefs are superior because he is under the delusion that they are based on fact but at the same time fails to provide the "objective evidence" he harassed everyone else about.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:47 PM. |