R
redneck22
Guest
Well said.
When Darwin was admitted to the halls of academia he ousted the Scientific Hardliners and admitted only The Storytellers and they have been there ever since.
- Status
When Darwin was admitted to the halls of academia he ousted the Scientific Hardliners and admitted only The Storytellers and they have been there ever since.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
What does this mean? To what halls was Darwin admitted? Who were the “Scientific Hardliners”? Who were the “Storytellers”?
What you say has no clear meaning.
R
rossum
Guest
How about the quote by your senior palaeontologist stating that transitional fossils are “abundant”? Stephen Gould was cited by you as an authority yet you refuse to accept what he says about transitional fossils being common. It is accepted that species to species transitionals are rare (Gould himself found some in a genus of marine snails called Cerion), but transitionals between higher taxa are “abundant” in Gould’s own words.
I have already posted the Synapsid to Mammal list twice in this thread. Do you have any problem with any of those fossils? Just because they are not as famous as Archaeopteryx does not make them any less of a transitional. We are finding new transitionals all the time, the latest one to his the news was Darwinopterus, a transitional between early and later pterosaurs.
These are highly qualified people, experts, stating clearly that we have got “abundant” transitional fossils:Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether though design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. [Emphasis added]
- S J Gould “Evolution as Fact and Theory” Discover Magazine May 1981.
Your own quoted expert tells you that you are wrong. You are being misled by your creationist sources.
Your creationist sources appear to be following a new version of Christianity - Christianity-Lite[sup]TM[/sup]. “New improved Christianity-Lite[sup]TM[/sup]. Now with 10% less Commandments than ordinary Christianity.” Yet again they are lying to you.
We have had a good evolutionary sequence for Whales since the mid nineties. Known transitionals include Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus etc. Here is a picture for you:
Is that enough whale transitionals for you?
If you keep your eyes closed then you will never see any evidence. AiG explicitly tell you that they are going to filter out pro-evolution evidence and you wonder why you have never seen any evidence for evolution. You would not expect to get an unbiased view of Christianity from atheist websites. Why do you expect to get an unbiased view of evolution from anti-evolution websites?
Show your model and the calculations behind it. Specifically show how your model includes the effects of natural selection. Any purported model of evolution that does not include natural selection will be incorrect and will give incorrect results. GIGO.
rossum
C
cassini
Guest
Honest to God Rossum, but I couldn’t take any of these guys seriously after the number of fossil frauds and manufactured evolutionary lines of bones they put together to convince science evolution from one kind to another actually happened. Take Ida, were it not for some honest scientists in this field the world would have been taken in hook line and sinker. It is just too convenient that there are no KINDS in transition to other KINDS today. It is just too convenient that the eco system is established as a well functioning entity in our time so has no need for further evolution. According to evolutionary theory there should be gaps to be filled still but there are none. It is easy to collect bones and say the prove something when they prove nothing. I laugh when I read of an elephant’s knee-cap being presented as an evolving animal/human skull. Who could take such a ‘science’ seriously? The very idea that whales lived on land before they went to sea is an insult to our intellect, evolved or created as you and I might say. Science cannot prove the absurd. So you can post as many complex scientific pictures you like but you cannot get one kind to mutate into another. Evolutionism is all based on assumption and assumptions are not science. For me, and others, evolutionism is a fairy tale for adults. For you it is a proven fact. The wisest man I know refuses even to discuss it as it is so absurd. He is well read and after reading Dawkins’s book said to me: ‘Dawkins’s faith in evolution would make him a saint many times over if it were in God.’
L
liquidpele
Guest
Honest to God cassini, but I couldn’t take any of these guys seriously after the number of balloons I’ve seen and manufactured evidence of things falling they put together to convince science gravity actually exists. Take rain, were it not for some honest scientists in this field the world would have been taken in hook line and sinker. It is just too convenient that there are no things falling right this instant. It is just too convenient that all things are supposed to fall when they don’t. According to gravity there should be more things falling but there are not… It is easy to throw things down and say they prove something when they prove nothing. I laugh when I read of a people claiming things fall when later it’s revealed they were pushed. Who could take such a ‘science’ seriously? The very idea that things fall naturally is an insult to our intellect. Science cannot prove the absurd. So you can post as many complex scientific pictures you like but you cannot get things to fall. Gravityism is all based on assumption and assumptions are not science. For me, and others, Gravityism is a fairy tale for adults. For you it is a proven fact. The wisest man I know refuses even to discuss it as it is so absurd. He is well read and after reading an elementary school science book, said to me: ‘Scientist’s faith in gravity would make them a saint many times over if it were in God.’
Anyway… regarding “faith” of scientists…
youtube.com/watch?v=WqznURlEWI0
You can believe whatever you want, but the evidence for evolution (including that of whales) is overwhelming. You pointing to a few mistakes and thinking that breaks the hundreds of thousands of other pieces of evidence, claiming things are taken as assumptions, and your claim of faith in evolution are ridiculous. You either have been misinformed, or you have a large case of confirmation bias. Have a nice day.
http://www.edkrebs.com/herb/petoons31/whelloffort.jpg
C
cassini
Guest
How did you put this together so fast Liquidpele? Now if you think I am going to argue that what they call gravity (whether it is a pushing effect or a pulling effect) is as real as evolutionism, well you are wrong. But good try Liquidpele, I enjoyed that.
R
rossum
Guest
I am aware of two well known fraudulent fossils - Piltdown Man and Archaeoraptor. I am also aware of fraudulent scientists, fraudulent Christian relics and fraudulent Christian ministers. Their existence is testimony to the lengths that people will go to for money, fame or both. They say nothing about the correctness or not of either evolution or Christianity.
Ida is not a fraud, it is a genuine fossil of an interesting early primate. It was originally thought to be very close to the lemur/ape split on the ape side. It is now thought to be very close to the lemur/ape split on the lemur side. It is still a transitional fossil, just that is is more likely transitional to modern lemurs rather than transitional to modern apes. Because it is very close to the split it is especially difficult to decide which arm of the split it belongs to. There is no fraud here. I will agree that the initial media hype was overblown, but that is not of scientific relevance.
How can you tell? No creationist has ever given an objective definition of what is and what is not a kind. For example, how do I tell if kangaroos and wombats are in two separate kinds: kangaroo kind and wombat kind, or in one single kind: marsupial kind? What are the objective criteria that I can use to tell?
Utter rubbish. As we speak humans are in the process of evolving better ways to deal with malaria and ways to deal with HIV. In Italy there is a mutation that helps people deal with the fat-rich Western diet. Ecosystems are still changing so there is still evolution.
Whales do not live on land, but their ancestors did. Those ancestors were related to Hippopotami, which spend a great deal of their time in water. Seals are closer to being all-aquatic than Hippos and less so than whales. The idea may be an insult to your intellect, but I find it perfectly reasonable.
Once the creationists have defined precisely what they mean by “kind” we will be able to give an answer. Are Synapsids and Therapsids the same kind or different kinds? Unless we know where the boundaries lie then we cannot say whether or not those boundaries have been crossed by evolution. From the point of view of biology there is only one “kind” - the ‘life on earth’ kind. Everything is related by common descent.
There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
- Darwin, Origins
C
cassini
Guest
OK Rossum, apart from our differences of rigid opinion there are a few points above demanding answers.
The IDA ‘fraud’ is the suggestion that it was the missing link. Two sets of scientists contradicting one another. Thus it demonstrates that this ‘SCIENCE’ is not the perfect medium to solve the riddle as to whether we were created direct or evolved with monkeys. Liquidpele’s video portrays SCIENCE as this NON-BIASED method towards knowledge. But because SCIENCE rejects God, it IS carried on under a DOGMA; that being ‘THERE IS NO GOD so there has to be a scientific explanation for origins.’ Thus you have SCIENCE conjuring up a BIG-BANG although SCIENCE knows you cannot get something from nothing, nor can bits come together as can be proven in an experimental explosion. There is no scientific method to demonstrate a gravitational cement of planets and stars. Its all MAGIC.
The history of SCIENCE and scientific institutions shows a BIAS against any scientist who challenges the SCIENCE of evolution. I have books written by scientists FIRED for this and PEER-REVIEW rejection of all their work, as well as having their GRANTS removed so that their ANTI-EVOLUTIONIST EVIDENCE never sees the light of day. The way that guy on the video spoke you would think none of this goes on.
KINDS are amimals that cannot interbreed. If they can breed NATURALLY they are of the same kind. Viruses do not evolve into CATS. Humans develop immune systems against diseases but do not turn into dogs when doing so.
R
rossum
Guest
The term “missing link” is a media shorthand for “a transitional fossil often, but not always, on the branch leading to humans”. Ida is still a transitional fossil, but she is not longer to be considered to be on the branch leading to humans. She is close to that branch, but not on it; instead she is on the branch leading to lemurs.
Yes. They do that all the time. Scientists are human and they make mistakes. Scientists look for new data so modern scientists can disagree with historical scientists because they have access to more data.
Two sets of theologians can also contradict one another. Should the filioque be in the Creed or not? Is salvation by Faith alone? Does the existence of disagreements between theologians invalidate all of Christianity?
We evolved with apes (Hominidae) rather than monkeys. Science is not perfect, but it has developed mechanisms to try to reduce the impact of imperfect humans making mistakes. Sometimes these mechanisms take a little time to work - as with Ida it took a little time to correct the initial error. No, science is not perfect but that is inevitable given that humans are not perfect. We know that in the past Popes and other Church hierarchs have made mistakes which have later been corrected. The Church is in the same position as science - humans sometimes make mistakes which are corrected as and when they are noticed.
Science does not reject God - Richard Dawkins is not reliable on this point. Science ignores God, just as it ignores Allah, ignores Shiva, ignores Amaterasu etc. Science provides material explanations for material phenomena. Christianity says that each and every human is created by God. Science says that humans result from a sperm fusing with an egg. Both are right in their own terms.
In that case your definition of kind is the same as the biological species definition. We have examples of new species evolving from old species (that is new kinds evolving from old kinds) both in the lab and in the wild. Some examples:* Oenothera lamarckiana → O. gigas
- Drosophila paulistorum (Llanos) → D. paulistorum (Orinocan)
- Culex pipiens → C. pipiens molestus
rossum
E
edwest2
Guest
I suggest you bring your data to the Vatican, point out the relevant issues and conclusions, and get their response.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
R
rossum
Guest
The Vatican already has an excellent panel of scientific advisers, who are far more qualified than I am.
rossum
C
cassini
Guest
Rossum, you would make a good case for black being white. From your posts one can see how you evolutionists pull the wool over many eyes.
Ida, according to the 4 US university scientists died out. In other words it died as a species. No dead species goes on as a transitional fossil. No doubt you will do an evolutionist conjuring trick and say 'There I told you, it died out because it evolved into another kind so its disappearance PROVES evolution.
As for new scientists contradicting historic scientists because of new data, well these two sets of scientists differed on the ONE fossil in ONE year. The creation evolution debate between scientists, and there are HUNDREDS of them on both sides, IS ONGOING for a HUNDRED years, and I have not heard of one changing sides because of new data.
The 'error. of IDA IS NOT CORRECTED according to its claimer. The two sides are both certain their opinion is correct.
OK, I used the wrong VERB, science IGNORES the existence of God. Accordingly it is stuck in its own DOGMA. The result of this is that the universe was not created according to science, so has to be around forever. But if around forever the Second Law has to be ignored because if it was around forever it would have reached zero energy matter by now. In other words SCIENCE contradicts its own laws to keep its DOGMA of no creation out of nothing.
Of course you can get new species from old species. But you cannot get a new kind from and old kind. Evolutionists use the God given genetic adjustment for climatic and environment change as proof for their kind to kind theory. They Con the unsuspected kids in the classrooms.
R
rossum
Guest
Your great great great great grandmother is dead. Since she is dead, by your own logic you cannot be descended from her. You have a strange idea of what a transitional species is. Your great^4 grandmother died a long time ago, but she had descendants before she died. Ida’s species was the same; just as a dead person can have living descendants so an extinct species can also have living descendants.
One year in which more studies were made on the fossil in question. There were more results available at the end of the year than there were at the beginning.
You are wrong. There are merely hundreds of scientists on the creationist side, there are tens of thousands of scientists on the evolution/geology/cosmology/astronomy etc. side when you count all the scientific disciplines that young earthers have to ignore.
This is precisely why I asked you to explicitly define “kind”, just so you could not change the definition as you are now trying to do. All of those pairs of species I mentioned are unable to breed with each other so by your own definition they are separate kinds, yet they either derived from each other or were once able to breed together. You cannot change the definition of ‘kind’ in the middle of the discussion.
rossum
S
severntofall
Guest
I’d love to hear of this “number of fossil frauds” that you speak of. I am personally aware of just two intentional acts of fraud involving the fossil record committed by accredited scientists. When mistakes are made (and they are occasionally), what we have found is the mistakes are discovered and reveled by other scientists and promptly corrected. Concerning Ida, the sizable majority of the accredited scientific community considers this fossil solid evidence of the evolution of mammals towards bipedality. There are a few who disagree, but the notion that disagreement among peers equals fraud is absurd; however I’d love to see you apply this standard to the Christian faith. Does disagreement among Christians equal fraud and thus invalidate the faith (Actually I say yes)?
I’m not even sure what you mean by this. There are countless fossils that are considered to be transitional to currently existing species. Humans, whales, horses, dogs, cats, etc; these are each species with well established fossil records demonstrating their gradual evolution.
I have never heard a proponent of evolution make this claim.
This statement doesn’t even make sense.
Yes and how do you know about this mistake…it was reveled in house by scientists.
Your statement is an insult to the education you received as a child. Just why is it that this claim is so obviously wrong? You pretend that evolution isn’t a fact by claiming there is no evidence for it (truth is that there is no evidence that you would accept for it), and then assume that we were all created ex nihlo…something for which there truly is no evidence for and has never been witnessed by anyone. This is the definition of hypocrisy.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
Where are the transitional fossils filling all the lines? This is what intrigues me about evolutionary trees. The palaeontologists find a few fossils that seem to share a feature or two of some specific genera, and suddenly the whole transitional sequence falls into place.
In actual fact, the “lines” are hypothetical.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
YOu also mentioned that dating methods were supposed to be consistent. Yet Argon dating has no dependable starting point, if my understanding is correct. And there is the problem of undispersed helium as shown in the following article.
icr.org/article/302/
icr.org/article/302/
W
wanstronian
Guest
So what are you suggesting? That we abandon a perfectly good theory, that all the available evidence supports, but for which there are a few evidential gaps, and replace it with one that is nothing BUT a gap?
Does a murder detective, upon discovering a gap in the chain of evidence, instantly discard his line of investigation and arrest an arbitrary member of the public? Or does he work to fill the gaps in evidence, until he either arrests the murderer or discovers some evidence that definitively clears him of the crime?
Evolution is far and away the most coherent theory we have at the moment. There is no contradictory evidence. And, it’s important to note, all the scientists involved with evolutionary theory are not sitting back smugly claiming they’ve proved the theory. They acknowledge the gaps and are constantly working to fill them. That’s far more than can be said for the creationism ‘theory,’ which relies exclusively on picking holes in valid discoveries that don’t support the creationist agenda.
E
edwest2
Guest
“no contradictory evidence”? Yes, there is. However, anomolies are ignored.
Second, evolution would fail in a court of law. It cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt anything. Saying it is a ‘fact’ is also a leap of logic.
The creationist agenda is more honest about what is wrong with the theory of evolution. Second, the only people I’m aware of who are against creationism are anti-theists. From the Catholic perspective, there are things science cannot demonstrate. Finally, the biology textbook is inadequate to explain the ‘ontological leap’ to man. It identifies man as just another animal, or bio-chemical robot, obviously self-programmed.
Peace,
Ed
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Wanstronian
Evolution is far and away the most coherent theory we have at the moment. There is no contradictory evidence.
Evolution does not explain the origin of life. There is no evidence that life randomly evolved from inorganic matter to organic. The mathematical odds are virtually nil. No coherent theory has been offered in that direction, and every practical attempt to show how it could have happened has been, and will always be, doomed to failure.
Evolution is far and away the most coherent theory we have at the moment. There is no contradictory evidence.
Evolution does not explain the origin of life. There is no evidence that life randomly evolved from inorganic matter to organic. The mathematical odds are virtually nil. No coherent theory has been offered in that direction, and every practical attempt to show how it could have happened has been, and will always be, doomed to failure.
G
Greebus
Guest
Ed, you clearly know more about evolution than the thousands of scientists out there who disagree with you. I would suggest submitting a paper on the subject for review. Seriously dude get yourself a science book, eventually you may realize how wrong you are on the subject of evolution and how foolish you come across trying to argue against it. Evolution is a scientific fact weather you wish to accept it or not, people like you could bring this world back to the dark ages.
- Status