Another transitional species found (church, Adam and Eve, explanation, before)
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.
Since we have put this one to bed yet again let's pour a drink and (before the brat wakes up squealing again) talk about why a scientific discipline discussion even is permitted in the religion section.
We both know that accepting that evolution is true is not why people become atheists and of course that many god -believers accept evolution, the big Bang, deep time geology and that Genesis is not literally true.
I recognize that the argument is about Genesis being taken as literally true. Again and again the creationist case goes onto the acceptance of the Bible as true from first page to last and (with a big hint that believing evolution rather than Genesis is Satanic) the need to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and saviour.
It was and still is a bit of a shock to hear this in what ought to be a discussion of the merits and demerits of a Scientific Theory. And it is a great pity and a criminal waste of everyone's time to have to point out that ALL the evidence fits into the evolutionary model, and not a scrap supports Creation.That the way "Micro" change will, given time and the environmental pressure, become "Macro" is pretty obvious and the anti -evolutionist case (where not based on quotemining, misrepresentation and the conspiracy theory of atheist professors suppressing anyone who dares speak up) is about the questions that remain to be answered, the lack of a documented critter change over a century (which is like saying they won't believe Pluto orbits the sun until it does a full orbit) and pointing the finger at evolutionary rethinks, like a different species of dinosaur might actually be juvenile and adult, or some species of hominid may turn out to be all the same one (which is the same as the reclassifying of Pluto being wagged about as science always getting it wrong).
This is what makes science better than religious Dogma - it learns more and rethinks beliefs in the light of new knowledge. In fact religious Dogma and Creationism also does this. But what is unchanging for them is Faith that the Bible is true (either literally or metaphorically) and that is why they can junk nonsense about seas under China and switch to this tripe about 'kinds', which in itself spawns a whole range of Theories from Baryma on the Ark (which is refuted both by the evidence and Bibletext (1) to genetic barriers to speciation, which is misunderstood. Yes, there are genetic barriers..or divergences rather...between different species interbreeding, but NOT a barrier to evolutionary change that transforms the same critter into a different one, as in Ambuloceus to a sea -creature or a fish to a land animal (via the transitional form Tiktaalik). Yet the Creationists still harp on this inter -species sterility thing which is utterly irrelevant to the evolutionary model.
This 'cats from Dogs' thing is held to even when explained as NOT evolution theory. We saw on another thread how the Antis insisted it WAS evolution theory and the atheist scientists were suppressing the fact that it does not work and feeding misinformation that evolution is based on a mechanism that actually does.
This laughable nonsense seems to be a tenet of Creationist Dogma and thus they cannot accept the simple fact that interspecies breeding is nothing to do with evolution and the gradual change of one species so that it changes its form so much you have to give it a new name, is.
And yet you still have Creation museums with paddocks of donkeys and infertile mules as though it was evidence of something.
(1) the fossils in the supposed Flood levels contain hundreds of thousands of species and not one of these "Baryma" and the Bible talks in terms of species of birds and also mentions cattle, and 'clean beasts' also implies the ones considered 'clean' by Jews. The Flood is clearly set n the world they knew and not a world of prehistoric beasts.
And yet there are no transitional fossils to back up your untenable position.
Please do give us all the scientific PROOF that all life on earth evolved from the single cell. After all, that is what some scientists state. Now get cracking and show us the proof. Oh, and please, don't resort to childish remarks. Just provide the proof. Thank you.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,934,547 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
And yet there are no transitional fossils to back up your untenable position.
I think it is time that we get truly concerned for your welfare. Have you been checked for early onset Alzheimer perhaps? You seem to exhibit some of the symptoms, as you revert back to statements that you have been shown numerous times to be incorrect. Many different posters have cited literature, and images that show a plethora of transitional fossils. Yet you seem to have forgotten those, but do recall memories held many years ago.
You really need to make an appointment with your doctor if you haven't and discuss the possibility with him. You have friends here who are concerned.
And yet there are no transitional fossils to back up your untenable position.
There are - you just deny them.
Quote:
Please do give us all the scientific PROOF that all life on earth evolved from the single cell. After all, that is what some scientists state. Now get cracking and show us the proof. Oh, and please, don't resort to childish remarks. Just provide the proof. Thank you.
You don't listen to a single word, do you? You have been given evidence to support the story of evolution from a single cell in the earliest strata through a sequence that fits the evolutionary story like a glove.
Together with the morphology and DNA evidence, that is all the scientific proof that any reasonable person would need. Your demand for proof that would convince you (and as I have shown many times, you simply ignore slam -dunk evidence that you don't like) is merely an apologetics trick as is the mention of 'scientific proof' as though what you have already been given is not scientific.
But as I have also said, it doesn't matter. Even if the evidence was not compelling, it would all be in favour of evolution and none ln favour of creation. So the deal is pretty much done and your ongoing denial is your own problem and only serves to let us put the case to those out there coming to realize that the Creationist case is not only not scientific, but is not even honest.
And that's why we even bother.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-29-2016 at 09:30 AM..
I think it is time that we get truly concerned for your welfare. Have you been checked for early onset Alzheimer perhaps? You seem to exhibit some of the symptoms, as you revert back to statements that you have been shown numerous times to be incorrect. Many different posters have cited literature, and images that show a plethora of transitional fossils. Yet you seem to have forgotten those, but do recall memories held many years ago.
You really need to make an appointment with your doctor if you haven't and discuss the possibility with him. You have friends here who are concerned.
Eusebius is allright. He has just had to develop an apologetics method in the absence of any decent argument. It is based on making us do all the work: demanding 'proof' that would convince him - and nothing would - and giving links and videos that we are supposed to research. Easy for him, time -consuming for us. Plus a lot of backchat and trashtalk that enables him to score the points he really can't make on an evidence- basis.
It's just an apologetics trick to refuse to accept the shedloads of transitionals put forward and then pretend that palaeontology has none.
And then do a bit of quotemining to make it seem that evolutionists are saying so. We saw that with the video that edited two comments - that there were many transitional forms, and that they are scarce, and pretend that is a self -contradicting slip. It is a deliberate bit of deceit on the part of the Creationist video -makers. Both remarks are true. Fossils are rare. Transitional fossils much more rare.
That we have such a lot pretty much proves how long evolution has been going on and how frequently transition of species has happened over time.
I think it is time that we get truly concerned for your welfare. Have you been checked for early onset Alzheimer perhaps? You seem to exhibit some of the symptoms, as you revert back to statements that you have been shown numerous times to be incorrect. Many different posters have cited literature, and images that show a plethora of transitional fossils. Yet you seem to have forgotten those, but do recall memories held many years ago.
You really need to make an appointment with your doctor if you haven't and discuss the possibility with him. You have friends here who are concerned.
No, I have a very good memory for some things.
I have posted videos of evolutionary scientists stating for the record that there are no transitional fossils. Maybe you forgot about that? Or maybe you never listened to them?
The problem with what you are saying is that people, on the basis of their say-so, state this or that fossil is transitional when, after all, they never saw any critter transitioning from one form to another.
But thanks for your put downs. It reveals when one has a lack of proof for their side that they feel the need to resort to such tactics.
You don't listen to a single word, do you? You have been given evidence to support the story of evolution from a single cell in the earliest strata through a sequence that fits the evolutionary story like a glove.
Together with the morphology and DNA evidence, that is all the scientific proof that any reasonable person would need. Your demand for proof that would convince you (and as I have shown many times, you simply ignore slam -dunk evidence that you don't like) is merely an apologetics trick as is the mention of 'scientific proof' as though what you have already been given is not scientific.
But as I have also said, it doesn't matter. Even if the evidence was not compelling, it would all be in favour of evolution and none ln favour of creation. So the deal is pretty much done and your ongoing denial is your own problem and only serves to let us put the case to those out there coming to realize that the Creationist case is not only not scientific, but is not even honest.
And that's why we even bother.
Now, now, I asked for actual scientific proof all life evolved from the single cell.
What you stated above is not proof but fluff.
You say the evidence is a slam-dunk for evolution. Well, show us all that slam-dunk that all life on earth evolved from the lowly single cell. It shouldn't be too hard for you to find since it is oh so apparent.
Eusebius is allright. He has just had to develop an apologetics method in the absence of any decent argument. It is based on making us do all the work: demanding 'proof' that would convince him - and nothing would - and giving links and videos that we are supposed to research. Easy for him, time -consuming for us. Plus a lot of backchat and trashtalk that enables him to score the points he really can't make on an evidence- basis.
It's just an apologetics trick to refuse to accept the shedloads of transitionals put forward and then pretend that palaeontology has none.
And then do a bit of quotemining to make it seem that evolutionists are saying so. We saw that with the video that edited two comments - that there were many transitional forms, and that they are scarce, and pretend that is a self -contradicting slip. It is a deliberate bit of deceit on the part of the Creationist video -makers. Both remarks are true. Fossils are rare. Transitional fossils much more rare.
That we have such a lot pretty much proves how long evolution has been going on and how frequently transition of species has happened over time.
Sorry but your links do not PROVE transitional fossils. It is just their say-so. I want real proof since so many of you say you have scientific proof of transitional fossils.
Please see my video posted earlier in this thread from evolutionary scientists saying there are none.
Nature is amazing, and science helps us understand nature. Another transitional species has been found, and in this case it is not a fossil. It is a real live fish, which has fins and a pelvis to help it walk up waterfalls.
For those of you who may not know it, fish do not have a pelvis normally.
what a joke. some poor little fish can boogie on the dirt.
it's a waterfall-climbing cave fish.
who's seeing what they want to see here ?
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.
You have been given evidence to support the story of evolution from a single cell in the earliest strata through a sequence that fits the evolutionary story like a glove.
