Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's not what origins means. Origins are where they come from. You spent a bunch of time saying that these were questionable, and that many fossils were frauds. Now when asked to back up your claims about these particular fossils, you backpedal and claim that you're just worried about their interpretation. I'm seeing this pattern a lot - you make slanderous claims about other people, then when confronted with it, you claim you were misrepresented. I think an apology would be more appropriate.
So are all of these fossils human? There's a number of them, they're different, and show a gradual change from something to a human. Is the first one in the sequence human or not? If it is, why don't we find skulls like this from modern humans?
Orgin -Where they come from, and that is what I question. And how Evolutionist interpret where they come from is what I really question. So no, I am not backpedaling. Evolutionist make a lot of claims, based on guesses. And then they try to turn their guesses into facts that I don't buy. And I see their pattern, and have watched their claims over the years. And this is where you really start to see the backpedaling. They keep making claims about different species, and then have to keep coming back to refute these claims, yet without all the fanfair. You ask the question, are these fossils human? Then you say they show gradual change. Change from what? You don't even know where they come from. And so your making assumption based on no evidence that they are changing. Then you say why don't we find skulls like this from modern humans? Maybe the skulls are not even part of the human race to begin with. Your whole approach is not scientific, and that is the whole problem with the Theory of Evolution. Yet Evolutionist will be the first to say how scientific their approach is. And you don't have to look very far to see how wrong Evolutions have been. Do you recall Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man, Orce man, ect? Everyone of these were considered to be the missing human link. All of them have been proven wrong, or misinterpreted. Now even the most famous Neandrathal man is stated not to be a human link either. So I don't have any confidence in your skull theory based on past performances of Evolutionist. As I said, the link you showed me stated under a number of those skulls were, MAYBE this, or MAYBE that. Science should not be based on MAYBE. And the Theory of Evolution that some claim is an undisputed fact boils down to, MAYBE this, or MAYBE that.
Maybe is not what my faith, or my beliefs are built on.
I'm aware that some evolutionist believe that whales evolved from animals that resembled hyenas with hooves, others say they came from sheep, cows, pigs, camels, deer, and hippos. What ever you want whales to come from just spin the bottle, because this is the evolution of solid science. Now this come right from Nation Geographic, so this should really fill you with confidence.
Again, you misrepresent what's in this article. Here's what it says
Quote:
The fossils found in Pakistan last year add weight to the second theory: that whales descended from the group of animals known as artiodactyls, whose members include sheep, cows, pigs, camels, deer, and hippos.
Please re-read this carefully. It doesn't say that scientists think that whales descended from sheep, cows, pigs, camels, deer and hippos. It says that the ancestor of whales was in the same group as the animals listed.
Imagine you said that you, your brother, and your grandfather are all part of your extended family. Would I be telling the truth if I the claimed that your grandfather gave birth to you? That's as ridiculous a misrepresentation as the one you're making of the quote from the article.
Look, I know science is detail oriented and that makes it difficult for some people. But if you're going to make specific claims, you really should take the time to make sure you're correct. It does nothing for your credibility to make obviously false claims about public information.
[QUOTE[I never claimed that such fossils did not exist, but Evolutionist trying to make a small and incomplete fossil of an extinct animal into a whale because they have an ankle bones and whale like skulls is laughtable. [/quote]
Look, the simple fact is that you claimed that there was just a piece of a fossilized skull. Now you're backpedaling and saying that there's a skull and ankle bone. Take a look at the picture again and note that there's lots more that that. Again, it goes back to the point that you don't really know what evolution claims, so you're not qualified to evaluate the quality of the evidence in favor of it.
Quote:
THIS IS YOUR SCIENCE, THIS IS YOUR EVIDENCE? This only demonstrates for me that what ever an Evolutionist puts in front of your nose you will believe.
Hey, at least I'll look at the evidence instead of just making stuff up.
Quote:
They will tell you Whales came from cows, you will believe it. They will tell you whales really came from deers, you will believe it. They will tell you whales came from camels, you will believe it.
Please post me saying that I claimed any of these things. You're the one misrepresenting this article you dug up, not me. I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop lying about me in a public forum.
Quote:
And now Talk Orgins Archive is telling us Whales evoloved from land dwelling furry animals.
All mammals are furry animals by definition. I don't see what's so outrageous about this claim.
Quote:
And they know this based on a skull and ankle bones.
Just because you choose to remain ignorant of the evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. For instance, from the very article you were misquoting from above :""In the last few years, 15 or 20 DNA studies have come out supporting this artiodactyl connection," said Gingerich." I really don't know why you posted this article if you're not going to read it.
Snipped the rest of the rant. It's obvious you don't understand the science, so your opinion of it really isn't that important.
Orgin -Where they come from, and that is what I question. And how Evolutionist interpret where they come from is what I really question. So no, I am not backpedaling.
Look, here's what you said -
Quote:
The skulls found on the link on post #391 are not transionals fossils. They are fully animal or human skulls of questionable orgins.
Quote:
It would take a book to go over the orgins of all 15 skulls, and even if I did that, we would still be left with the question of what are they. Some skulls may be human, others may not be
I think the change in tone here is pretty clearly backpedaling. You're sure they're not transitional, then when questioned on it, you claim ignorance of what they are because you don't really know.
In other words, you're not willing to do the research to find out what they might be or where they came from, yet you're happy to tell everyone that these fossils are from questionable origins. When called on it, you retreat to "well, maybe they are, maybe they aren't" because you can't reconcile your claims with reality.
And also note that in the first post you wrote "questionable origins" and then immediately went on to discuss fake fossils. Heck, in this very post you come back to it. It's obvious you were implying that these fossils were fakes also. It's unfortunate for you that your accusation is false, but it's obvious what you were trying to do. It's an underhanded trick that you wouldn't need if you had any data to support your case.
Quote:
Evolutionist make a lot of claims, based on guesses. And then they try to turn their guesses into facts that I don't buy.
Lets see some specific evidence. This kind of slander should at least be backed up by some fairly serious proof.
I'm not going to quote the rest of the post entirely, but it's obvious to me that these fossils make you uncomfortable. If they really were not transitional fossils, you could tell me that they're all human, no doubt about it. But instead you're all over the place to try and avoid answering that question, because you know what you're left with .
Quote:
Maybe the skulls are not even part of the human race to begin with.
Yeah, maybe they're of a species which was similar to humans but no longer exists because that population evolved into something closer to modern humans. That would just shoot the whole theory of evolution out of the water, wouldn't it?
I still notice you can't answer a simple question - are all of these skulls human? You're have absolute faith that these are not transitional fossils, so what's so hard about the question? You're off in a million different directions trying to distract from this simple point, which makes it obvious to me that these fossils are too hard to refute in a straightforward factual way.
Again, you misrepresent what's in this article. Here's what it says
Please re-read this carefully. It doesn't say that scientists think that whales descended from sheep, cows, pigs, camels, deer and hippos. It says that the ancestor of whales was in the same group as the animals listed.
Imagine you said that you, your brother, and your grandfather are all part of your extended family. Would I be telling the truth if I the claimed that your grandfather gave birth to you? That's as ridiculous a misrepresentation as the one you're making of the quote from the article.
Look, I know science is detail oriented and that makes it difficult for some people. But if you're going to make specific claims, you really should take the time to make sure you're correct. It does nothing for your credibility to make obviously false claims about public information.
[QUOTE[I never claimed that such fossils did not exist, but Evolutionist trying to make a small and incomplete fossil of an extinct animal into a whale because they have an ankle bones and whale like skulls is laughtable.
Look, the simple fact is that you claimed that there was just a piece of a fossilized skull. Now you're backpedaling and saying that there's a skull and ankle bone. Take a look at the picture again and note that there's lots more that that. Again, it goes back to the point that you don't really know what evolution claims, so you're not qualified to evaluate the quality of the evidence in favor of it.
Hey, at least I'll look at the evidence instead of just making stuff up.
Please post me saying that I claimed any of these things. You're the one misrepresenting this article you dug up, not me. I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop lying about me in a public forum.
All mammals are furry animals by definition. I don't see what's so outrageous about this claim.
Just because you choose to remain ignorant of the evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. For instance, from the very article you were misquoting from above :""In the last few years, 15 or 20 DNA studies have come out supporting this artiodactyl connection," said Gingerich." I really don't know why you posted this article if you're not going to read it.
Snipped the rest of the rant. It's obvious you don't understand the science, so your opinion of it really isn't that important.[/quote]
A decendent of a cow or whatever, the idea of such animals as a link to whales is far fetched at best. And I say this because of the lack of evidence presented by those pushing the theory. Their whole arguement rest on speculation, not solid science. And the reason I say you will believe anything they present before you, is because I don't see you questioning anything they have stated. And I also stated that both the Pakicetus and the Ambulocetus examples lack the crucial features needed to support the Evolutionist claims for transsitionals. Evolutionary Biologist Ann Alisa Berta commented on the Ambulolcetus fossil stating "that since the pelvic girdle is not preserved there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal."
And as far as the Pakicetus goes, they only have some cheek teeth and fragments of the skull and lower jaw, so we have no way of knowing whether it's locomotion was transitional.
What I do understand is that science should be based on evidence, and not speculation about non existant evidence. I donot choose to remain ignorant, yet I will not buy into a theory without evidence, and that is something I believe you are willing to do.
What I do understand is that science should be based on evidence, and not speculation about non existant evidence.
Then how could you possibly believe in creationism? There isn't any evidence whatsoever. You ridicule evolution but you don't have any problem believing in a woman being made out of a rib from her husband who lives to be over 900 years old?
Yeah...like "what IS life?" Without science, you have philosophy.
It is a good thing that philosophy, like art, can never be science; in art and philosophy 1+1 is not always 2.
Then again being creative and / or intuitive by skipping some logical steps could still produce the right answer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
in art and philosophy 1+1 is not always 2.