Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 316 of 416 (527760)
10-02-2009 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 2:10 PM


Re: Oldest fossil bat
I'll come right to the point: such fossils should have been found long ago just like the others. The problem is not a lack of fossils...there are billions to choose from and still trillions to unearth. But by now the steady stream of transitions between not just the bat, but virtually every single organism and other organisms should have not only be found, but be in abundance.
Demonstrate for us, using whichever method you choose to hold open to your embarrassment and general ridicule, why exactly we should have found all the fossils by now. In particular, why should we have found all the fossil bats and bat-like creatures? The god-botherers have had more time to seek them through divination than scientists have had and the scientists have still produced more fossils in the last 100 years than 3000 plus years of knees-bent, heads-bowed, deep and serious prayer to assorted deities. So you're the one saying we shoulda-done-it-by-now. Prove it.
The fact that you didn't give any evidence in reply to my challenge speaks loudly and clearly.
Bullshit. I called your challenge nonsense and answered it with an equally nonsensical challenge to show that it is nonsense.
You're piling it awful deep ya know.
The Mosaic classification system, which pre-dated Linnaeus by 3,300 yrs places the bat with flying creatures. It was a completely different system. The concept of 'mammal' did not exist at that time.
Does that actually qualify as a system? Systems have rules and processes...in other words we can learn how systems work. You just want us to take your word for it that you know what Moses means and he knew what God meant.
As was pointed out a little later, your careful editing of what I thought was supposed to be a holy text for you places you square in the same group as all the other televangelists, faith-healers and charlatans who've lied the truth out of the Universe in order to keep the donations coming in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 2:10 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:00 PM Tanndarr has not replied
 Message 354 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 7:25 PM Tanndarr has not replied

Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 317 of 416 (527764)
10-02-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 3:19 PM


Re: Oldest fossil bat
Just remember this: Moses came first. If God calls it a 'fowl' then it is His determination that is bottom line and not Linnaeus.
Explain to us please how a bat is more like a chicken than it is like a mouse.
Are you even reading the things you're saying? If God thinks and commands that a bat is a bird then God is wrong. If he wants to fix that then he can do so at his omnipotent leisure. In the meantime it's just plain wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:19 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:51 PM Tanndarr has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 318 of 416 (527765)
10-02-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 3:03 PM


Re: Bats. Just bats.
But you and I both know you cannot do this. You can't even touch it. And the problem is not just with bats, but flowers, ferns, conifers, bacteria, pigs, horses, and virtually every other organism under consideration. It takes a healthy imagination to fill in all those huge gaps.
And it takes a particular religious a priori belief, which supplies blinders and encourages a closed mind, to look at all of the empirical evidence and then deny just it. Yet this is what you have done on this thread.
You really should be posting in the Faith forums, as what you're doing here is not science. It is in fact anti-science. Mostly you keep repeating the same point, which has been well-refuted. Rather than deal with the refutations, you just repeat the same point again and again. You seem to be proselytizing, not debating.
Also, hominid evolution is well established both by fossils and genetics, and is denied only by the more extreme varieties of creationists. Again, this is anti-science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:03 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:39 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 319 of 416 (527767)
10-02-2009 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 3:19 PM


Re: Crying fowl
Deleted
Edited by Coyote, : Possibly off topic

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:19 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:43 PM Coyote has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 320 of 416 (527769)
10-02-2009 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Coyote
10-02-2009 3:32 PM


Re: Bats. Just bats.
And it takes a particular religious a priori belief, which supplies blinders and encourages a closed mind, to look at all of the empirical evidence and then deny just it. Yet this is what you have done on this thread.
I am an ex-evolutionist. The pitiful reasoning I have seen on this thread in the last four days makes me feel glad I rejected that ridiculous theory. Evolution is such a joke.
You really should be posting in the Faith forums, as what you're doing here is not science. It is in fact anti-science. Mostly you keep repeating the same point, which has been well-refuted. Rather than deal with the refutations, you just repeat the same point again and again. You seem to be proselytizing, not debating.
This is the 'CREATION vs evolution' website. Are you so naive as to think that you would not confront those who believe in a real CREATOR?
Stop your complaining.
Also, hominid evolution is well established both by fossils and genetics, and is denied only by the more extreme varieties of creationists. Again, this is anti-science.
Well established only in the minds of those who believe as you do. But in this country; USA, the majority still believe in divine creation.
Gallup, 2008:
Those who believe in divine creation: 44%
Those who blieve God caused evolution: 34%
Those who believe no God but in evolution: 14%
The rest were uncommited: 8%

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Coyote, posted 10-02-2009 3:32 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2009 6:59 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 321 of 416 (527770)
10-02-2009 3:41 PM


Moderator Advisory
I will henceforth begin issuing short suspensions for posts with no on-topic content. If you've posted completely off-topic before seeing this, fix it quick.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:52 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 322 of 416 (527771)
10-02-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Coyote
10-02-2009 3:33 PM


Re: Crying fowl
Not in science.
You don't know your history. Moses was trained in the arts and sciences of Egypt. But what he taught in Leviticus was from God. God has the final word whether you like it or not. This is His world.
Do you really want me to proceed with the rest of my illustrations concerning living fossils? I've got lots more, friend and massive overkill is no problem for me. There is no evolution on this planet and never has been. Those who believe it are dreaming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Coyote, posted 10-02-2009 3:33 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Granny Magda, posted 10-02-2009 3:54 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 337 by Coyote, posted 10-02-2009 4:34 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 323 of 416 (527772)
10-02-2009 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Tanndarr
10-02-2009 3:32 PM


Re: Oldest fossil bat
Explain to us please how a bat is more like a chicken than it is like a mouse.
Why? If the classification by Moses concerns flying creatures (fowls) as opposed to those that don't fly ("All fowls that creep") Leviticus 11;20 then what is the point?
Do not attempt to force the Linneaus classification system on to the Mosaic classification. They don't comport and it isn't a fair comparison.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Tanndarr, posted 10-02-2009 3:32 PM Tanndarr has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 324 of 416 (527773)
10-02-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Admin
10-02-2009 3:41 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
I will henceforth begin issuing short suspensions for posts with no on-topic content. If you've posted completely off-topic before seeing this, fix it quick.
Just saw this. Understood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Admin, posted 10-02-2009 3:41 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 325 of 416 (527774)
10-02-2009 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 3:43 PM


Still No Argument
You still don't get it.
Do you really want me to proceed with the rest of my illustrations concerning living fossils? I've got lots more, friend and massive overkill is no problem for me.
You have provided plenty, even if most of them are a bit dodgy. But lets' put that to one side for a moment. Let's suppose that all the examples you have provided are living fossils. Let's also suppose that you provide us with a hundred more, or a million.
So what?
You have been repeatedly informed that this does not contradict the theory of evolution.
You have repeatedly been asked why you think it does.
The nearest you have come to explaining this is when you posted the Huxley quote, which doesn't even directly address the ToE.
When are you going to explain your argument here? When are you going to specify exactly what aspect of the ToE is contradicted by living fossils? When are you going to explain why we should expect to see any particular rate of evolutionary change?
There are living fossils that have hardly changed in billions of years. They are called stromatolites. If these organisms don't worry biologists, why should any of your examples?
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:43 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Dr Jack, posted 10-02-2009 4:01 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied
 Message 329 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:11 PM Granny Magda has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 326 of 416 (527775)
10-02-2009 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Tanndarr
10-02-2009 3:27 PM


Re: Oldest fossil bat
Demonstrate for us, using whichever method you choose to hold open to your embarrassment and general ridicule, why exactly we should have found all the fossils by now.
Embarrassed? You are the ones who should be embarrassed. The bat example alone was priceless! The living fossils smash evolution, but like I said earlier, 'corpses standing near ground zero in a nuclear blast will feel nothing.' Can you grasp that? Do you get the inference?
I didn't say anything about 'finding all the fossils by now'. Why don't you THINK? Why don't you be honest? There are 40 million fossils catalogued in the London Museum of Natural History alone. I've been there. But in the words of Colin Patterson, who was once curator of that great museum, the transitions are missing. Of the living fossils that I have revealed in the last four days, there should be thousands, nay, millions of transitions linking every kind of orgaism on this planet. But evolutionists can't find any (or, better put, a few that are highly disputable).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Tanndarr, posted 10-02-2009 3:27 PM Tanndarr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Dr Jack, posted 10-02-2009 4:06 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 348 by jacortina, posted 10-02-2009 5:27 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 327 of 416 (527776)
10-02-2009 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Granny Magda
10-02-2009 3:54 PM


Pendatic rambling
There are living fossils that have hardly changed in billions of years. They are called stromatolites.
Stromatolites aren't organisms. They're made by organisms (specifically by photosynthetic prokaytotes). We don't know how much the organisms involved have changed because it's basically impossible to say anything intelligent about how different two prokaryotes are simply by looking at their morphology. Although, having said that, we do have some chemical reasons to think they were Bacteria or similar as opposed to Archaea.
Your point does, of course, stand regardless.
Edited by Mr Jack, : Clarify

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Granny Magda, posted 10-02-2009 3:54 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 328 of 416 (527777)
10-02-2009 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:00 PM


The topic is living fossils
And, again, you fail to support your argument using living fossils. Why are you unable to form an argument that involves only living fossils? No, don't mention transitionals. Just living fossils. Why do they contradict evolution?
Let's pretend for a moment that the bat you showed us the nice pictures of was identical in every way to a living bat. So what? How is that evidence against evolution?
The existence of transitionals is a completely different question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:00 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:13 PM Dr Jack has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 329 of 416 (527779)
10-02-2009 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Granny Magda
10-02-2009 3:54 PM


Re: Still No Argument
You still don't get it.
No, it is you and your comrades that don't get it. You have all been hit in the face with the force of a sledge hammer (so to speak) and yet arrogantly assume that evolution is still a legitimate theory. Perhaps I should go on with the rest of my examples but I told the administrator that I was only going to answer questions and move on. I better live up to that. The problem is the questions just keep coming...but they are so pitiful!
For instance:
There are living fossils that have hardly changed in billions of years. They are called stromatolites. If these organisms don't worry biologists, why should any of your examples?
Because they have been trained to syphon out ANYTHING that would tend to overthrow the pure prejudice that the world is millions of yrs old, that's why. That's the way I felt while I was an evolutionist. I no longer buy it and the living fossils is one big reason why I don't.
Mary Schwietzer's FIRST question when she discovered the T-Rex blood cells was "Those bones are 65 million yrs old. How could they survive that long?" A logical question since science had 'established' that such soft tissue discoveries had to be less than 50,000 yrs old. So instead of doing the logical thing and questioning evolutionary dates, she and her comrades question the timing of soft tissue survival! You see, it is the paradigm that of 'god' to evolutionists. That must be preserved at all costs. A young earth is not acceptable no matter what.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Granny Magda, posted 10-02-2009 3:54 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Granny Magda, posted 10-02-2009 4:19 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 330 of 416 (527780)
10-02-2009 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Dr Jack
10-02-2009 4:06 PM


Re: The topic is living fossils
And, again, you fail to support your argument using living fossils
Look, friend, if you wish to live in la la land and pretend that living fossils do not destroy the theory of biological evolution then I can't stop you. But it does. There is little or no change in biological organisms...no matter how much time has transpired between the dead and the living.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Dr Jack, posted 10-02-2009 4:06 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Dr Jack, posted 10-02-2009 4:20 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 340 by Tanndarr, posted 10-02-2009 4:40 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024