A well thought-out argument against anti-evolutionists

Don't forget the whole " The eagle will pick up Israel, and protect it" part,
Which is happening right now...

 

i usually dont like these, because there is no end...but i dont like it when people dont understand it...

nobody claims we evolved from monkeys/apes in the modern theory of evolution...we both cae from a common ancestor...

 

ah well i was going to post the famous "4 limbs of animals" picture but i see from readin Freakers post over agin, that it has been posted...silly me...


but yeah, one of the main problems with the theory of evolution is that most people are either not toaght it correctly, or they are taught it and do not understand the science and concepts behind it...


also i dont know if it has been said, but you dont have to beleive in creationism to be christain...my science teacher is a catholic, and is a bio teacher who belives in evolution...but ask him where life cam from in the first place, and then youd probobly get a little more spiritual answer [obviously off class time though ]

 

Still waiting for you to answer my question. Was Archaeopteryx a fake trans-species or was it real? And your points are pretty much pointless. Looking forward to actually seeing you type a coherent sentence, with out the personal attacks.

 

By Stephen Jay Gould, Anthropollogist

The "Urban Legend" of Punctuated Equilibrium's Threefold History: The opponets of punctuated equilibrium have constructed a fictional history of the theory, primarily (I suppose) as a largely unconscious expression of their hope for its minor importance (..) This supposed threefold history of punctuated equilibrium also ranks about as close to pure fiction as any recent commentary by scientists has ever generated.
Such farfetched fiction suffers most of all from an internal construction that precludes exposure and falsification among true believers, whatever the evidence. Purveyors of this myth even name the three stages, thus solidifying the false taxonomy.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould-structure.html

HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR AN ANIMAL, PLANT OR PERSON TO BECOME FOSSILISED AFTER DYING...?
"The amount of time that it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized is highly variable. If groundwater is heavily laden with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly. Modern bones that fall into mineral springs can become permineralized within a MATTER OF WEEKS."
Philip J. Currie, Evolutionist.

National Geographic is popularly reguarded as an important scientific magazine that carries out research all over the planet and shares the results with its readers. The magazine is a major source of information in a great number of important areas, yet few readers are aware of the extent to which it passes this information through an ideological 'filter' before handing it on to it's readers, and sometimes even twist the data according to the demands of this ideology and builds-up completely imaginary stories
The ideology in question in National Geographic is a blend of philosophical naturalism and the current brand of evolutionism, known as Neo-Darwinism. In the name of defending that theory, it generally presents prejudiced views of discoveries, and even opens the door to scientific falsehoods. For example, there was the falsehood of the Archaeoraptor fossil, which was presented by National Geographic in 1998 as an infallible evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but which later proved to have been 'hand made.'
One instance of National Geographic's 'sensational, unsubstaiated and tabloid' evolutionis propaganda was its 'Evolution of Whales' artical carried in the issue of November, 2001. The artical maintained that a string of fossil discoveries had proved the evolution of whales thesis and even quoted paleontologist Hans Thewissen as arguing that whales were one of the best examples of evolution. The pictures, reconstructions and diagrams plastered all over the 14 page articale were intended to visually reinforce the same claim in readers' minds.
However, the 'evolution of whales' scenario, so fiercely defended by National Geographic, was-and is-nothing but a fairy tale, devoid of any scientific evidence.
http:www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp

 

Trans-Species is what Darwin said would and should be found in the fossil record if his theory of evolution was true. There should be in the fossil record billions of changes in simple and complex life forms. It would demonstrate evolution in action. The problem is, the fossil record shows nothing like this has ever happened.

 

The foot prints were made after the flood.

 

I think, to believe in a theory that should be easily found in the fossil record as Darwin said it must be, and then not find it, and still believe in it anyway, is asinine.

 

That's not exactly true. The syntax should be, the fossil record doesn't show this to happen - at least, not in the supremely cut-and-dried sense that you seem to want.

So let me get this straight. You want a fossil of a one-celled organism, a two-celled organism, a three-celled organism, etc., up to a worm, then a worm with nubs, a worm with elbowed nubs, a worm with legs, a worm with legs and feet, a worm with legs, feet, and toes, and so forth?

Not only is the process not as linear as that, but the probability not only of all of the steps of the entire line of evolution having been preserved somewhere, but of us finding them, is exceedingly small. We've only been at this for a hundred years or so.

This has all been explained to you before. I suggest you go back and consider StonerBill's multi-colored string example.

 

Since you've pointedly ignored most of my previous coherent sentences, I didn't feel like wasting further effort. However, since you ask, I shall repeat myself for what, the fifth time now? And I don't know how many times others have said it...if you will refer to point #1 of the post to which your quoted post above was a response, you will see that I said that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil.

In fact, most fossil species are transitional fossils - homo erectus and homo habilis are transitional fossils on the way to homo sapien sapiens. Assuming we don't all suddenly become extinct, we are a transitional species on the way to something else.

Archaeopteryx simply stands out because it's a giant marker in the sense that it shows transition between larger groups of animals. It shows 'major' transition, while homo habilis shows 'minor' transition. Look at the world around you; you can find many transitional species. Many species of Euglena (a Protist) are both hetero- and auto-trophic. That means they both ingest other matter for sustenance and create their own food with chlorophyll. They likely represent descendants of the first transition from autotrophs to heterotrophs. Lichens are a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and algae - a more perfect union would be a prototypical plant, such as moss.

If you open your eyes, it is impossible to deny the power of Nature - that power is what you call God and worship, but it is not sentient and does not care for your prayers or your books. Appreciate the world around you and work for the betterment of life, instead of trying to rigidly adhere to some musty fable and twisting it to match your world-view. You'll be a much better and happier person for it in the end.

 

Darwin believed there would be numerous fossils showing this, He said if his theory were true they would be found in great numbers. They can't even find ONE. It dosent matter if it is one cell, or two cell, or a million cells. They got nothing. The fossil record is empty when it comes to supporting Evolution. I don't need all the steps just show me one step. Show me one trans-species out of a trillion that should be there. So we have fossils of every time period but the only time we can't find a fossil is when evolution was occuring. Give me a brake. Evolution is nothing more than a new religion, and thats all it is. No evidence, no facts, but you believe it anyway. And even though billions of trans-species should be in the fossil record you say, Oh that would be a rare thing. You can find fossils everywhere and of everything except when evolution occured. WOW. And you expect me to believe their lame explanations why they can't find any. And you call this science. They can't find any, because Evolution never happened.

 

Just because Darwin may have been mistaken about an aspect of his theory, doesn't mean his theory is totally incorrect. Newton had what we now believe to be misconceptions about gravity; Bohr had misconceptions about the structure of the atom, yet they both supplied much that was valuable and indeed instrumental to the formation of the knowledge that we have about gravity and the atom, respectively.

You are asking for trans-species fossils again. You say that not one has been found, while here in this thread we have shown you trans-species in the lineages of humans, whales, and horses. We have shown you Archaeopteryx I don't know how many times. We could show you cats, I'm sure, and various lineages of fish, plant, and insect. And yet you insist upon saying that "not ONE" trans-species fossil has ever been found.

We have asked you, then, to provide an example of what you would consider to be a trans-species. And you staunchly refuse. Your only answers have consisted of repeating that Darwin claimed there should be a profuse amount of them, without ever once mentioning what exactly it is that you yourself would be looking for. We have told you what would constitute proof to us that God exists; please be so kind as to inform us what would constitute proof to you that evolution occurs.

 

If you took the time to read my thread all of the so called trans-species fossils have been debunked. THATS MY WHOLE POINT AND I GUESS YOU MISSED IT. I have not staunchly refused, again you did not read one of my last post, where I stated a trans-species is any living simple cell or complex that show dramatic change which can be demonstrated in the fossil record.

 

The existing trans-species fossils have not been debunked. I suggest you go on a paleontological dig yourself and witness the wonder of unearthing your very own Archaeopteryx fossil.

I waded through your link to the article "debunking" the whale lineage, and I think I am beginning to understand where you are coming from with this "transitional form" hysteria. From the second to the third form in the line, the fossils appear to suddenly change from standard terrestrial auditory equipment to standard marine mammal auditory equipment. There are at least 3 explanations for this:

1) Fossils of the two species have not yet been found in excellent enough condition to establish that one or both forms had the use of both types of hearing.

2) There is an as-yet-undiscovered species between them.

3) (Perhaps the most likely The change occured within a single family line of the second form, refined over many generations until they became the basis of the third form. In this case it is not enough to simply find a fossil of a given species - now you are looking for a specific fossil. That's like assuming that only 1 in 10,000 humans are buried, and those that are buried were buried in unmarked graves in riverbeds or tar pits, etc. Now it's not enough to find _a_ human skeleton, no no - you want us to locate Elvis' skeleton. It's quite possible that he simply wasn't buried - or, if he was, it's going to take us a heck of a long time to find him.

Hopefully I've explained this in terms that you can understand.

 

In 1992 the discovery of a seventh Archaeopteryx fossil which disproved that Archaeopteryx is a Transitional as described in the Jornal Nature. It was a full structured bird. Stop useing these kinds of examples as if they are transitionals. They had disproven Archaeopteryx years ago. Would you start to think about what you are saying. I also did a thread on whales. Evolution must be in the fossil record, if you think that millions of years have gone by and billions of tran-species or living cells or complex life have some how avoided the fossil record then I have some property in Flordia to sell you.

 

I aksed you to give me a DEFINITION of a Trans-species fossil... not what some dead guy said about it a couple hundred years ago. Learn to read. CAuse if you don't have a definition then how can you flat out say what is shown as a trans-species fossil is not. You have nothing to go by other than your own demented mindset.
Give me your definition. Not what Darwin said, not what any evolutionist said, not what any other creationist said. What is your definition of a trans-species fossil...

Don't feel like continuing a post (making a lot like Campbell) so live with a long one.

Campbell you still haven't addressed the point that someone walked into the dinosaur print years after it was made. It would still look the same but would explain the differences between how the prints act on the ground.

LEAVE DARWIN ALONE! He's dead, if he was alive now or had had more time to study the concept of fossils he would have realized that only at certain points of time/place/condition do fossils actually form. He was a man working with poor technology and without the knowledge that we have today. AKA, you can't use what he said in earlier years (much earlier) and apply it today.

How can you go around and say that trans-species fossils do not exist when you DON'T TELL US WHAT ONE IS! Singles celled organisms don't leave fossils. They have nothing that is capable of being fossilized. And even if they do, we wouldn't be able to see them because not even a microscope could find it in a rock!

 

So huge carnivorous lizards are still around and were on the tightly confined ark in the same huge rooms detailed in that diagram you posted awhile ago with all the pairs of defensless herbivores? Something here's not adding up, and I think it's your entire argument.

 

You know that Stephen Jay Gould thing is an introduction, right? It doesn't actually say anything. It introduces a topic that he's going to talk about. And since he's so incredibly long-winded and the article is a gazillion pages long, I'm not going to waste my time trying to make sense of it.

You mineralize a bone in less than a year, and take it to a paleantologist, and I'll bet you five bucks they'll be able to tell the difference. If that even works, which would be taking the word of you and some canadian museum guy, and I'm not about to do that.

And ya know what? I'm really, honestly, and truly, willing to trust the guys at Nat'l Geographic over this Harun Yahya guy.

 

Cambell wants a transitional species that is, say, neither dinosaur nor bird, but is both dinosaur and bird. An illogical and impossible proposition.


Why are you guys wasting your time debating with him? Neither side is getting anywhere, and cambell won't even respond to the main points in direct ways. This thread is now over 250 posts long, and going nowhere. Time to call it quits, use your time, energy, and debate abilities in a more useful way, eh?

 

quote of the day:
"Evolution is nothing more than a new religion, and thats all it is. No evidence, no facts, but you believe it anyway.", says the religious freak.
Campbell im positive no one is on your side in this matter, so stop responding like Phantomopus is the one being a complete jackass. it is safe to say that campbell is not thinking, at all. Hes got one response, with many flashy ways of presenting it. It doesnt really matter what you ask him.
I think its cute though, because in all of his senseless ramblings hes managed to contradict and embarass his own religion numerous times.