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.
[quote=AREQUIPA;10524644]Because you are not troubling to comprehend what is being said. You are quotemining out of context to give fallacious support to your dislike of evolution.
The previous posts point out in detail where you are being dishonest, not so much in quotemining, because you are just copying and pasting this stuff, but in continuing to do so when it is pointed out to you.
You'd better give a link since I can't find any information about this person or where you got this from. Previous similar quotes have been taken out of context inasmuch as they say that biological research is a preferred source of evidence for evolution rather than fossils, which is right. But it was presented as implying that fossils somehow did not support evolution.
"Did the find lead to the conclusion? Or was a conclusion made before the find?" The conclusion leading to the twisting of facts to suit the conclusion is an example of Creationist thinking, not scientific thinking.
The details about the evolution of the whale are there for you to see, if you troubled to look. Your fantasies about the way the scientists fudged the facts reflects only too well the way Creationists think so no wonder you suppose scientists think the same way.
The fossil dicoveries showed evidence of skeletal links between an early land mammal, a primitive whale and a more whale - like whale.
I seem to recall you (or someone similar) saying you wouldn't believe evolution until there was evidence of a dog giving birth to kittens. When evidence is produced of that order (a wolf into a whale), you reject it because you consider that a wolf can't turn into a whale. Reverse circular argument anyone?
It would be nice if we had a meticulous series of fossils between Ambulocetus and Basileosarus. Sorry, we haven't; but we do have fossil animals showing skeletal similarity that peg out the line or evolution. You may say that it's not enough. You may dismiss it. But the fact is that it is is yet a little more evidence FOR evolution and yet more evidence that doesn't support Creation.
Claim CC216.1:
There are gaps between land mammals and whales. Source:
The transitional sequence from a land mammal to whales is quite robust. See Babinski (2003) or Zimmer (1998) for pictures of some of these.
Pakicetus inachus: latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983; Thewissen and Hussain 1993).
Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994).
Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993).
Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion.
Basilosaurus: middle Eocene and younger. A fully aquatic whale with structurally complete legs (Gingerich et al. 1990).
an early baleen whale with its blowhole far forward and some structural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998).
The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).
Talk origins, of course.
The staggering stupidity of this remark from Darwinism Refuted.com
matches your conrtibution.
Quote:
Fossil remains of the extinct mammal Pakicetus inachus, to give it its proper name, first came onto the agenda in 1983. P. D. Gingerich and his assistants, who found the fossil, had no hesitation in immediately claiming that it was a "primitive whale," even though they actually only found a skull.
Yet the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale. Its skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises, and crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one.
So, why was a quadrupedal land dweller announced to be a "primitive whale" and why is it still presented as such by evolutionist sources like National Geographic? The magazine gives the following reply:[.quote]
In the famous well - known saying 'It should be obvious to the meanest intellect". If a land animal evolved into a water creature, isn't it reasonable that its land - dwelling ancestor's remains should found in a land environment. The gross and fatheaded misdirection of saying that since Ambulocetus is a primitive whale (which it is in the sense of being a family ancestor) and everyone knows that whales are sea - creatures, then by definition this land creature could not be a whale.
One might as well argue that J.F Kennedy could never have become US president as Kennedy is an Irish name. So he must have been Irish. Are you not ashamed to align yourself with such thinking, either sloppy or dishonest? Can you look at a sea - lion and deny that at one time it must have been a land animal that took to water and evolved to become what it is now? What is your problem?
Don't bother to answer; I know what it is.
Yes, the details of whale evolution are there for all to see. And that is the big problem. There's not much detail to view. The conclusion is based on fragments. And the first conclusion about Pakicetus being a primitive whale, was only based on a skull P.D. Gingerich held in his hand. And now you say, what's my problem? Are you for real? And their conclusion you consider real science? It's speculation, with little evidence of it's reality. Pakicetus was later discovered to be a four legged land animal on the order of a wolf. Yet, what did that matter, they now made it into a primitive whale because of some molar teeth, a folding bone in it's middle ear, and a missing bone in it's skull. Thats it. That's your slam dunk evidence. Now everyone should believe this wolf is a whale? LOL
And yes, I can look at a sea-lion and believe it was never a land animal.
And maybe you got it wrong. Maybe the sea-lion is going to be a land animal. LOL Who's to say? All of this is speculation based on fragments of bones. And these conclusions are based on someone's speculative imagination. And why do you believe the sea-lion must evolove? If the fossil record shows us anything, it shows us that everything appears constant. And for that reason, believers in evolution are now suggesting that the fossil record offers little value when trying to prove evolution. Were talking common sense here.
And that is why evolutionist Mark Ridley professor of zoology at Oxford.
Made this statement in 1981.
" In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
Link below.
The quote comes from a Conference on Macroevolution held in Chicago. It was reported by Roger Lewin, Science magazine, Volume 210, November 1980, pp 883-887.
"I take a dim view of the fossil record as a source of data," observed Everett Olson, the paleontologist from UCLA. But such views were challenged as being defeatest.
Link below.
"Evolutionary Theory Under Fire" by Roger Lewin (http://www.theistic-evolution.com/lewin.html - broken link)
His actual quote will be found at the bottom paragraph of page two of that link.
Now I'm getting curious as to what was actually said that day. Olson was definitely not anti-evolution - just checking the titles of his published papers will show that - and I doubt he got up at a conference to make a one-sentence statement. Ah well.
Now I'm getting curious as to what was actually said that day. Olson was definitely not anti-evolution - just checking the titles of his published papers will show that - and I doubt he got up at a conference to make a one-sentence statement. Ah well.
The people that I am quoting are true believers in evolution. I disagree with almost everthing they believe. Yet, they are stating a simple truthful reality that we all can agree on. The fossil record shows no evidence of evolution. Olson, is not the only evolutionist saying this.
This ancient lament was intoned by some at the Chicago meeting: "I take a dim view of the fossil record as a source of data," observed Everett Olson, the paleontologist from UCLA. But such views were challenged as being defeatest [sic]. "I'm tired of hearing about the imperfections of the fossil record," said John Sepkoski of the University of Chicago; "I'm more interested in hearing about the imperfections of our questions about the record." "The record is not so woefully incomplete," offered Steven Stanley of Johns Hopkins University; "you can reconstruct long sections by combining data from several areas."
Olson confessed himself to be "cheered by such optimism about the fossil record," and he listened receptively to Gould's suggestion that the gaps in the record are more real than apparent. "Certainly the record is poor," admitted Gould, "but the jerkiness you see is not the result of gaps, it is the consequence of the jerky mode of evolutionary change."
"Evolutionary Theory Under Fire" by Roger Lewin (http://shell.dim.com/%7Ejambo/evolution/lewin.html - broken link)
Edit to add this thought...I believe it is quite easy for creationist sites to quote mine papers like this when they involve scientists debating their ideas, as they are constantly doing, but I also know how dishonest it is. The creationists that copy and paste these mined quotes from creationist sites, in my opinion are just as dishonest, if they do not investigate the source....As rifleman says they are "lying for Jesus". Honesty, apparently has no value in the creationist handbook.
There was nothing dishonest when repeating Olson's statement. He may of been cheered on by others optimism. Yet, his inner feelings and beliefs were revealed in that meeting. And those feelings and beliefs you do not want anyone else to know about. And that sounds more like trying to hide the truth, then someone repeating what Olson clearly stated.
I am not threatening you at all, I am just leaving it to the Holy Spirit to work/judge on you, which it will, regardless of your feelings about me. You are the one who called me a liar, when all I did was explain my side, and never once, called you a liar. Misguided yes, but not a liar.
To each his own, but I witnessed to you, and when you die, and meet Jesus, He is going to tell you, I sent my church to you, and you called them liars and false witnesses, when in fact it was you who denied what He did for you. You have heard the truth, and because of that, and your denial, you will be judged based upon that. If you were an indian, in the Amazon, and never heard of the gospel, Jesus, or even God, your fate may be intact, but for you, it is not.
I apologize if I came off wrong, or sounded a authoritative towards to you, but after a while, it becomes difficult, as Jesus and His disciples felt about the Jews and their religious fallacy, in which they proclaimed the gospel with much more authority than I could ever do. So I will leave it at that, and allow you, to ponder about your death, when it is all said and done, and see who you turn to before your last breath.
So, let me get this straight. Magic Man is so ego-maniacally inclined to demand unrepentant adulation, attention, and forced worship because of his "love" for us. For those who choose not to do this, there is a special place for them consistent with a Stalinistic gulag (save the temperature difference).
Of course, Magic Man has decided to explain himself via the depictions of illiterate Bronze Age goat-herders who have hardly explored life outside of a blistering hot desert that often induces dramatic hallucinations as a result of dehydration.
Naturally, Magic Man is so self-consumed that thought crime has now become punishable by eternal death and destruction. One is not allowed to possibly examine avenues and explanations outside of Magic Man's benevolent constructs lest they be practicing thought crime of the highest magnitude.
In fact, Magic Man has placed preponderances of evidence to suggest that we, along with the rest of all living things, did indeed evolve from lower forms of life and have been doing so for the past three and a half billion years or so. Magic Man has made sure (after the Great Flood, no doubt) to stack countless remains of creatures in various geological strata 'just to see.' He's also given every single living creature on this planet the same chemical instruction set (DNA) that just so happens to match up in intricate detail with those fossils found in the intricately placed geological strata. Lest we also not forget that he's ordered each of these individual fossils in various subsets of geological strata in a fashion that makes them look different and in various states of progression.
The true test for Magic Man is seeing if human beings fall for his uncanny deployments of tactics in order to test their faith and make sure they stay true to him. As Magic Man has already predetermined, many will fall for these tricks and ploys and will be convicted of thought crime at a later date.
I'm sorry but I do not buy into your infantile claims of a Magic Man directing us as though he were the totalitarian dictator you make him out to be. Even if such a thing were truly existent, I would not subjugate myself to groveling and worshiping such pathetic and whimsical notions of adolescent mind control lest I be punished for thought crime.
Conservapedia is a joke, and one of the most dishonest quote miners of them all.
"Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)
"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)
(Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)
The direct evidence for human evolution has increased enormously since the early 1990s via the discovery of hundreds of new fossils, including three new genera and even more new species; and via the comparisons of modern and ancient deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Great leaps forward are being made in science because of this proliferation of information.
So be it. Like I said, I have failed in providing you all with ample reason to ponder the subject, and I will be judged accordingly.
BTW though, if you did any in depth study of fossils, you would see its relation to the flood.
Not my claims anyway, I just believe it. Till some other time, when I am more prepared, and I will be, for your sake.....why do you think I am here anyway?
So be it. Like I said, I have failed in providing you all with ample reason to ponder the subject, and I will be judged accordingly.
BTW though, if you did any in depth study of fossils, you would see its relation to the flood.
Not my claims anyway, I just believe it. Till some other time, when I am more prepared, and I will be, for your sake.....why do you think I am here anyway?
Tell me, no prove to me that the flood myth has any bearing on fossils found today. Show me how the flood produced the immense amount of fossil fuel found today could have been produced in only 6000 years....Think about how silly that is.
Conservapedia is a joke, and one of the most dishonest quote miners of them all.
"Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)
"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)
(Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)
The direct evidence for human evolution has increased enormously since the early 1990s via the discovery of hundreds of new fossils, including three new genera and even more new species; and via the comparisons of modern and ancient deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Great leaps forward are being made in science because of this proliferation of information.
Someones getting it wrong, and it's the creationist and the media?
The media only supports the theory of Evolution. Evolution has the media in their corner pocket. And you have been saying that creationist were getting it wrong on the fossil record as well. Yet now we discover that believers in evolution are starting to agree with creationist on the fossil record. And that agreement is based on the fact, that the fossil record does not confirm evolution. It appears to me, your the one who got it wrong, and those of like minds. Evidence that cannot be found it the fossil record will not disprove evolution. Yet, for years the fossil record was used by believrs in evolution as one of the main proofs for evolution. Here again, the fossil record has been revealed to be nothing more than another one of evolutions myths. And what I see in evolution today is a real split. You have those who still believe the Old School ideas, and you have those who are finally coming out of the closet and speaking the truth about what the fossil record reveals. The fact is, many have been doing this for a while, yet, their comments have been ignored by main stream media. The same media you claim has been getting it wrong.
Tell me, no prove to me that the flood myth has any bearing on fossils found today. Show me how the flood produced the immense amount of fossil fuel found today could have been produced in only 6000 years....Think about how silly that is.
Fossil Fuels?
Almost all fossils on earth are found buried in sedimentary rock (sandstone, limestone, and shale), which are found in stratified beds. Many of these layers of rock have been named and are frequently diagrammed as a cross-section known as the geological column. The earth is completely covered by massive layers of sedimentary rock that were deposited under "flood" conditions. What's silly is you don't do your homework.
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.
