Robert Sungenis on Transitional fossils

[Stephentlig]

Hi guys I wasnt hear long ago asking questions about a website that claimed to have transitional fossils, however, I got an e-mail from Robert sungenis on transitional fossils.

Stephen,

Yes, transitional fossils are proof for evolution, but that sad fact for evolutionist is that they haven’t been able to find any indisputable transitional fossils. The two leading evolutionists, Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge, admitted it in a 1971 speech in Chicago to all the world’s evolutionists. Subsequently, they invented the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium to replace the absence of transitional fossils. PE is a theory that various species punctuated the landscape instantaneously, without gradual development. Prior to this, Niles Eldredge writes in his books that he used to go out on fossil excavations on a routine basis, but was always frustrated by the fact that he never found any. Many more scientists have admitted that there are no transitional fossils. Some have claimed to have found some, but these are always dubious. You can depend upon the fact that if some scientist found a bona fide transitional fossil, it would make world headlines and be the most stupendous find since the dawn of mankind. But obviously, that has not happened. Everytime the evolutionists have put forward a specimen that they hoped would be a transitional fossil or missing link, it has been discovered that it either belonged to an already known species, or that the specimen was faked, as is the case with Piltdown Man and many others.

There is much more evidence against so-called transitional fossils than what I am giving you here. If you need any more, please let me know.

Robert Sungenis, Ph.D.

Stephentlig:thumbsup:

 

[rossum]

Hi guys I wasnt hear long ago asking questions about a website that claimed to have transitional fossils, however, I got an e-mail from Robert sungenis on transitional fossils.

Robert Sungenis is not a reliable scientific source. He is wrong about transitional fossils, (and he is wrong about geocentrism as well). I understand that his theology, the “Not by …” series is well thought of.
Robert Sungenis:

Yes, transitional fossils are proof for evolution, but that sad fact for evolutionist is that they haven’t been able to find any indisputable transitional fossils.

This is incorrect. There are many undisputed transitional fossils. Ambulocetus, Tiktaalik and so forth. Have a look at the classic transitional fossil Archaeopteryx:

                    Feathers   Flight   Bony Tail   Teeth
                    --------   ------   ---------   -----
Dinosaurs            No         No       Yes         Yes
Feathered Dinos      Yes        No       Yes         Yes
Archaeopteryx        Yes        Yes      Yes         Yes
Early Birds          Yes        Yes      No          Yes
Modern Birds         Yes        Yes      No          No

How could it be more transitional? It is a mixture of dinosaur like features (teeth and a bony tail) with bird like features (flight and feathers). That is what a transitional fossil is - a mixture of features from two related groups.

The two leading evolutionists, Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge, admitted it in a 1971 speech in Chicago to all the world’s evolutionists.

No they did not. If you want a quote from Gould then how about: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.

S J Gould “Evolution as Fact and Theory” Discover Magazine May 1981.
Gould says that transitional forms are “abundant” between higher groups. Sungenis was probably thinking of a common creationist quotemine that gives a false witness of what Gould says. If he was then he was relying on false information and passed on that false information to you.

Subsequently, they invented the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium to replace the absence of transitional fossils. PE is a theory that various species punctuated the landscape instantaneously, without gradual development.

This indicates that Dr Sungenis does not understand Punctuated Equilibrium. PE is “sudden” is geological terms, which may involve a few thousand generations over a few thousand years. It most certainly not instantaneous.

You should not rely on Sungenis for scientific information about evolution - it is about as sensible as relying on an atheist website for information about the Catholic Church.

rossum

 

[masterjedi747]

Hi guys I wasnt hear long ago asking questions about a website that claimed to have transitional fossils, however, I got an e-mail from Robert sungenis on transitional fossils…

Rossum gave the best answer you’re probably going to get.
(Now head for the hills before this thread explodes!!! )

 

[cassini]

Hi guys I wasnt hear long ago asking questions about a website that claimed to have transitional fossils, however, I got an e-mail from Robert sungenis on transitional fossils.

Stephentlig:thumbsup:

OK Stephen, let us get this thread going.

Very recently there was found a fossilised lemure. There is nothing quicker to becoming famous than finding the ‘missing-link’. History abounds with such finds, all of which were exaggerated or simple frauds. The most hilarious I read of was a missing hominid-man skull that turned out to be an elephant’s kneecap or something like that. Anyway, always on the look-out for that elusive ‘missing-link’ the evolutionists hailed this find as the ABSOLUTE link between man and lemure. Now in Ireland we have this RTE programme called MOONEY and he has this bunch of know-all evolutionists endlessly spouting out evolutionist stories. True to form they announced this find and invited the King of modern evolutionists David Attemborough to comment. He told the gullible Irish that this was THE ultimate missing link between lemure and man. There was jubilation for a while and one could picture them shaking hands and opening a bottle of champaign. Then just to rub it in they contacted a professor of geneology or something and asked him what does he think of the finding of the missing link at last. He said

" Well actually, there are FOUR hypotheses as regards this find." That was enough, another missing link assertion fossilised.

Now for another missing link fraud: The story of four people walking around on all fours in Turkey or some other Muslim country broke some years ago. The evolutionists rushed there to confirm these four-to-two missing links. Speculation abounded in the evolutionists press (all science journalists) about this incredible find. The scientists examined the four and sent back pictures of these ‘living-fossils.’ They scanned them looking for transitionary bones etc. All they found were slight brain damage compared to the four’s many siblings. A local woman doctor went further however and identified this brain damage would cause balance problems. She then spoke to the parents and soon she found out the cause of the four-by-fours. It seems the woman had no time to TEACH and HELP the children to walk upright. Think about it, parents take time to help kids walk upright. Anyway she then set in motion a plan to teach and help these adults to walk properly. Within weeks all were up and running so to speak.

But the punchline is terrific:

A lorry full of soldiers came up to the hotel where the evolutionists were staying and ordered them all into the back of the lorry to be deported. The authorities said Islam believes in direct creation and these scientists were using their unfortunate people to try to falsify the revelations of Genesis. Now that is more than the Vatican would do these days.

 

[Orogeny]

You should not rely on Sungenis for scientific information about evolution - it is about as sensible as relying on an atheist website for information about the Catholic Church.

Or any other scientific question. Rossum has given a very good answer and hopefully the OP now knows to watch out for Sungenis.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Very recently there was found a fossilised lemure.

How do you know it is a lemur? Have you examined the fossil and do you have the expertise to make such a claim?

Peace

Tim

 

[cassini]

How do you know it is a lemur? Have you examined the fossil and do you have the expertise to make such a claim?

Peace

Tim

They announced it as a lemur. And while I am on let me say I am absolutely disgusted at the lot of you trying to do *ad hominum * on Robert Sungenis. This is the most Scurrilous of all forms of debate. Attack the credibility of the man (probably a sin ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour’).

My advice to you Stephen is keep away from this forum if you want truth to win out. There are evolutionist vultures scanning this forum making sure no one even gets to hear the truth. Proof of this is that you have been advised by three of them to ignore ANYTHING Mr Sungenis has top say on anything.

Darwin said transitional fossils would be found to prove him right. Logic would tell you many such transitionary fossils SHOULD be found if Darwinism is right. But note what was found: billions of fully formed fossils. this poses two questions: Given that creatures must be buried quickly to become fossilised, and so few are, how come the vast numbers found WORLDWIDE and of a similar kind (shell type in one place, four legged creatures in another) But if there was a sudden world wide flood then this would account for the flood and sediments necessary for such perfect specimens to be fossilised. As the waters and sediments rose those creatures able to flee would be found in different places.

The second question is that if there are so many fossils, where are the vastly greater number of transitional fossils? To actually list a half dozen

(Archaeopteryx is almost certainly a fraud, feathers set in cement, in order to make money from desperate evolutionists) They will not allow it to be tested because it just might be exposed as a fraud and what would they do for their ‘missing kinks’ then)

as representing a few billion missing links is an insult to men and science.?

Note Stephen how clever and prepared this lot are. They will have an answer for everything, no matter how pathetic. They are a continuation of the great plot to undermine the simple Catholic faith, they push their imbicilic theory until one tires of them and goes away awaiting the last day when God will expose the fraud on His omnipotent powers of creation immediately by fiat, all creatures according to their kind (no lemures to men).

 

[theistgal]

My advice to you Stephen is keep away from this forum if you want truth to win out. There are evolutionist vultures scanning this forum making sure no one even gets to hear the truth.

Yeah, and be sure you don’t read anything by that evolutionist German shepherd in Rome, either!

 

[Orogeny]

They announced it as a lemur.

The press release and the article do not identify it as a lemur. Do you acknowledge that?

And while I am on let me say I am absolutely disgusted at the lot of you trying to do *ad hominum *on Robert Sungenis. This is the most Scurrilous of all forms of debate. Attack the credibility of the man (probably a sin ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour’).

Too bad. He holds himself out as an expert and he isn’t. I know you are his disciple, but if he insists on making claims like he did to Stephen, he will continue to be attacked. No different than attacks on Richard Dawkins for his ignorant claims about religion.

My advice to you Stephen is keep away from this forum if you want truth to win out. There are evolutionist vultures scanning this forum making sure no one even gets to hear the truth. Proof of this is that you have been advised by three of them to ignore ANYTHING Mr Sungenis has top say on anything.

Yep. No one here but us vultures!

Let’s see if you are telling the truth, cassini. Rossum wrote

You should not rely on Sungenis for scientific information about evolution.

I wrote

Originally Posted by rossum

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
You should not rely on Sungenis for scientific information about evolution - it is about as sensible as relying on an atheist website for information about the Catholic Church.

Or any other scientific question. Rossum has given a very good answer and hopefully the OP now knows to watch out for Sungenis.

Doesn’t look like either rossum or myself said what you claimed.

Darwin said transitional fossils would be found to prove him right.

And they have.

Logic would tell you many such transitionary fossils SHOULD be found if Darwinism is right. But note what was found: billions of fully formed fossils.

As opposed to partially formed fossils? Is that what you would consider a transitional?

this poses two questions: Given that creatures must be buried quickly to become fossilised, and so few are, how come the vast numbers found WORLDWIDE and of a similar kind (shell type in one place, four legged creatures in another) But if there was a sudden world wide flood then this would account for the flood and sediments necessary for such perfect specimens to be fossilised. As the waters and sediments rose those creatures able to flee would be found in different places.

And that clearly explains why on scleractinid corals are found with rugose corals. Right. The scleractinid corals ran from the flood. Genius!!!

The second question is that if there are so many fossils, where are the vastly greater number of transitional fossils?

Are you asking why there are not more transitional fossils than there are fossils?

To actually list a half dozen
(Archaeopteryx is almost certainly a fraud, feathers set in cement, in order to make money from desperate evolutionists) They will not allow it to be tested because it just might be exposed as a fraud and what would they do for their ‘missing kinks’ then)

as representing a few billion missing links is an insult to men and science.?

Wow. Even the most rabid YECs don’t agree with that.

Note Stephen how clever and prepared this lot are. They will have an answer for everything, no matter how pathetic. They are a continuation of the great plot to undermine the simple Catholic faith, they push their imbicilic theory until one tires of them and goes away awaiting the last day when God will expose the fraud on His omnipotent powers of creation immediately by fiat, all creatures according to their kind (no lemures to men).

Have you tried to get help for your problem? Seriously.

Peace

Tim

 

[cassini]

Yeah, and be sure you don’t read anything by that evolutionist German shepherd in Rome, either!

Certainly not on the evolution farce, especially that IN THE BEGINNING.

 

[cassini]

The press release and the article do not identify it as a lemur. Do you acknowledge that?Too bad. He holds himself out as an expert and he isn’t. I know you are his disciple, but if he insists on making claims like he did to Stephen, he will continue to be attacked. No different than attacks on Richard Dawkins for his ignorant claims about religion.Yep. No one here but us vultures!
Tim

It was introduced in our papers and radio as a lemur. Either way, it was an animal fossil, created according to its kind by God in the beginning and not on its way to becoming a man.
I was a creationist and accepted the 1616 decree well before I even heard of Sungenis. There are many points on which I disagree with the opinions of Sungenis.

 

[Orogeny]

It was introduced in our papers and radio as a lemur.

Well, it’s good that you believe everything the press tells you rather than spending about 20 seconds on Google to get the real story.

Either way, it was an animal fossil, created according to its kind by God in the beginning and not on its way to becoming a man.

Of course it is. After all, it is a complete rather than partially formed fossil.

There are many points on which I disagree with the opinions of Sungenis.

Sure there are.

Peace

Tim

 

[cassini]

Let’s see if you are telling the truth, cassini. Rossum wrote

You should not rely on Sungenis for scientific information about evolution - it is about as sensible as relying on an atheist website for information about the Catholic Church.

I wrote

Or any other scientific question. Rossum has given a very good answer and hopefully the OP now knows to watch out for Sungenis

Doesn’t look like either rossum or myself said what you claimed.
Tim

Well now let us see: If Sungenis’s science is not worth reading, his ‘faith and science’ is not worth reading, and if ‘it is about as sensible as relying on an atheist website for information about the Catholic Church’, then NOTHING he has to say is worth anything. I’d say that what I claimed is far closer to truth that what you imply.

 

[Orogeny]

Well now let us see: If Sungenis’s science is not worth reading, his ‘faith and science’ is not worth reading, and if ‘it is about as sensible as relying on an atheist website for information about the Catholic Church’, then NOTHING he has to say is worth anything. I’d say that what I claimed is far closer to truth that what you imply.

Of course it is if you add your bit, but if you read what I wrote, it isn’t. I did not write that Stephen should ignore ANYTHING that Sungenis has to say. Nor did rossum nor did masterjedi747. You made a false claim about us.

Peace

Tim

 

[cassini]

And they have. As opposed to partially formed fossils? Is that what you would consider a transitional?And that clearly explains why on scleractinid corals are found with rugose corals. Right. The scleractinid corals ran from the flood. Genius!!!Are you asking why there are not more transitional fossils than there are fossils?Wow. Even the most rabid YECs don’t agree with that.Have you tried to get help for your problem? Seriously.

Peace

Tim

You know well What ‘missing links’ should be in the rock; rats with 1% formed wings, a rats with 2% formed wings, rats with 3% formed wings, etc., etc., bats with 99% formed wings, bats with 98% formed wings, bats with 97% formed wings etc., etc. Now WHERE ARE THEY?

As regards my saying you evolutionists have an answer for everything, you follow up with

‘And that clearly explains why on scleractinid corals are found with rugose corals.’

WOW! you got me there, I didn’t know that. Does that eliminate the need for rats with 1% wings, rats with 2% wings etc., etc. Give me about five years to investigate and I guarantee I’ll get a creationists explanation for scleractinid corals found with rugose corals.

 

[cassini]

What do you think now Stephen?

 

[Orogeny]

You know well What ‘missing links’ should be in the rock; rats with 1% formed wings, a rats with 2% formed wings, rats with 3% formed wings, etc., etc., bats with 99% formed wings, bats with 98% formed wings, bats with 97% formed wings etc., etc. Now WHERE ARE THEY?

Sure they should cassini. Just keep repeating that to yourself and maybe even you will believe it sooner or later. However, in the real world that the rest of us live in, a transitional is an animal that has features that are diagnostic of two different animals. Archaeopteryx, Tiktaaltik, Ambulocetus, etc.

As regards my saying you evolutionists have an answer for everything, you follow up with

‘And that clearly explains why on scleractinid corals are found with rugose corals.’

WOW! you got me there, I didn’t know that.

Actually, I did get you there. I don’t know that even the most rabid, anti-science YEC would claim that corals ran from the global flood that didn’t occur. Well, actually, let me take that back. I know of at least one.

Does that eliminate the need for rats with 1% wings, rats with 2% wings etc., etc.

No it doesn’t. Do you want to guess why?

Give me about five years to investigate and I guarantee I’ll get a creationists explanation for scleractinid corals found with rugose corals.

Go ahead. I look forward to it.

Peace

Tim

 

[Stephentlig]

What do you think now Stephen?

Its ok Cassini, I have defintely myself not started this thread as a debate, as I’ve just finished a week long debate on some other forum, so I need to return to the Lord for sometime, that and I have got to move house tomorrow, moving to a place named after St.Mary sigh of love me and my fiance ( seperate rooms of course lol ) but I shall be talking to sungenis again to further see what his thoughts are with regards to rossums reply.
I dont beleive a word that comes out of rossums mouth, or the worlds philosophical mouth for that matter. we must remember that if the world agrees on something thats been created outside of the mind of the church, that it is definitely wrong. another example of what most of the world agrees on is abortion. I have already shown in our previous debate that evolution is wrong. we must remember that the world cannot accept anything thats simple, the devil presents everything in a complicated manner.

I was thinking today and discussed it with my girlfriend, about non-beleivers in God and evolutionists, that, perhaps ( and infact I do believe it to be the truth ) due to all the fables they have been conditioned with since they were kids, fables such as ''superman, incredible hulk, Jurassic park, spiderman etc etc due to all these fables their mind has been complicated and they feel that if man can create whats seems to be such a fantastic peice of work in their eyes, that they can no longer accept the simple creation story in the book of genesis but only see it as a fable that someone wrote a few thousand years ago. they cannot accept simple things.

we need to cassini show our brothers the swing of the pendulum, to look how small Gods voice is in the world compared to the worlds voice itself. look how many movies/fables ( that contradict Catholic teaching ) make their way into the cinema.rather than Catholic films? Yes like I said before, you can be very well assured that if the world agrees on one thing that goes beyond the teaching of the Catholic church you can be assured its wrong.
GK Chestorten once said something along the lines of that the catholic church is the most hated church in the whole world, which tells me its the right one. nobody sets out to make documentarys to destroy buddism, or disprove the doctrine of Islam or disprove the doctrine of the Jewish, but always the Catholic church, all our protestent brothers love one another, but they are all united on one thing and thats to destroy the catholic church, unfortunately nobody ever sees it, its a grace given by God, spirituality means awakening, to open ones eyes and ‘‘see it’’ I cant describe it to people, I can only plant the seed and let God do the growing. describing being awake is very hard, like describing the fragrance of a rose, its impossible, they have to experience this rose for themselves.

evolutionists have this big saying to creationists that goes something along the lines of ''BUT HOW COULD YOU DISREGARD SOMETHING AS BEAUTIFUL AND COMPLICATED AS EVOLUTION?

but what they fail to see is what God says in scripture when he says ‘‘seek him in simplicity of heart’’ ( book of wisdom )

he is not a complicated God, but a simple one.

go outside and listen and open your hears, listen to the sound of that bird singing, and understand that God has not hidden anything from you. our life here my dear brothers is only momentary, its only a desert wasteland, our true home is with Jesus and Mary in heaven, this is what we should have our hearts fixed on. when our lady of fatima came to those little children, she warned us all that the church was gonna enter some difficult times, and Yes, we are living in those times, but how many of you are gonna ‘‘wake- up’’ -and- see- it?

God bless and take care.
Stephen <3

 

[rossum]

You know well What ‘missing links’ should be in the rock; rats with 1% formed wings, a rats with 2% formed wings, rats with 3% formed wings, etc., etc., bats with 99% formed wings, bats with 98% formed wings, bats with 97% formed wings etc., etc. Now WHERE ARE THEY?

You are showing your ignorance of what a transitional fossil is. We start with a dinosaur with 100% formed arms. Next is a dinosaur with 100% formed feathered arms. Next is a dinosaur with 100% formed gliding feathered arms/wings. Next is a dino/bird with 100% formed wings for powered flight.

All transitional fossils are “100% fully formed”. It is just that the organ in question, such as an arm/wing, may not yet be fully adapted for its later purpose.

I suspect that the creationist sites you are reading have given you false witness about what evolution means by “transitional”. Isn’t there something in the Bible about bearing false witness?

(Archaeopteryx is almost certainly a fraud, feathers set in cement, in order to make money from desperate evolutionists) They will not allow it to be tested because it just might be exposed as a fraud and what would they do for their ‘missing kinks’ then)

You need to read more creationist websites. Even Jonathan Sarfati of CMI and AiG agrees that Archaeopteryx is not a hoax: see Archaeopteryx is not a hoax. If your fellow creationists do not accept this rubbish, why on earth do you expect us to believe it? If you cannot even convince the choir then you have a real problem. I strongly suggest that you read Answers in Genesis’ page Arguments Creationists Should not Use.

rossum

 

[masterjedi747]

I shall be talking to sungenis again to further see what his thoughts are with regards to rossums reply.

headdesk …what in the world? …why would you do that?

I dont beleive a word that comes out of rossums mouth

…and he probably has a better grasp on this subject than you ever will, unfortunately.

we must remember that if the world agrees on something thats been created outside of the mind of the church, that it is definitely wrong.

What does that even mean?
The Church does not stand on high and claim to be the only source of all discoverable truth in the world.

Yes like I said before, you can be very well assured that if the world agrees on one thing that goes beyond the teaching of the Catholic church you can be assured its wrong.

If by “goes beyond” you mean “contradicts”, then yes. Otherwise, no.

we must remember that the world cannot accept anything thats simple, the devil presents everything in a complicated manner.

What is it with you people? This is utterly ridiculous.
The devil is perfectly capable of presenting things in a simple manner.
And God is perfectly capable if creating an incredibly complex universe.

he is not a complicated God, but a simple one.

Yes, and sometimes He also works in complicated ways.
Maybe you’d like to explain to me why He created men on this earth, and not immediately in heaven? Or chose to become Incarnate, suffer, and die rather than reverse the effects of the Fall in an instant? For that matter, why He chose to prepare the Jewish people for thousands of years before sending His Son?

but what they fail to see is what God says in scripture when he says ‘‘seek him in simplicity of heart’’ (book of wisdom)

…“seek him in simplicity of heart” does not mean “seek him with an uneducated intellect”.

go outside and listen and open your hearts, listen to the sound of that bird singing, and understand that God has not hidden anything from you.

:nope: …so clearly well-intentioned, yet so woefully misdirected. … … deflates