|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another Chance For Creationists To Recite Falsehoods About Intermediate Forms | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There are many intermediate forms in the fossil record. This fact sends biology-deniers into their most ridiculous and hysterical fits of falsehood, because they cannot bear to acknowledge that this fact is a fact.
This thread is therefore dedicated to their arguments. If they wish to deny reality, this is the place for them to do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
I think you could do more to kick this off.
You could focus it more clearly on "transitionals" perhaps by getting that in the title. You could give some discussion about punk eck maybe? Just more to set the stage please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But "where's the meat?" is just the question that I'm asking.
I feel like a man in a forest talking to someone who denies the existence of trees. It's hardly up to me to make the argument. This is a thread for reality-deniers to make their arguments. Where's the meat? Where's the meat? Where's the meat? It's an excellent question. Where's the meat? This is a thread for them, not for me. I've told them again and again in other threads about other subjects that their denial of intermediate forms is off-topic. Here is a thread where it is completely on-topic. This is the purpose of this thread. If anyone wants to deny the existence of intermediate forms, this is the place for them to do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread copied here from the Another Chance For Creationists To Recite Falsehoods About Intermediate Forms thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
how many?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
how many? So many that it is impossible for me to count them. If there were just six of them, I could count them and give you the answer "six". But there are so many, and new ones being discovered every month, that I don't know how many there are. The fossil record is full of them. How can we even start to count them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3969 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Here's a lovely list of transitional fossils that have been found for you guys to peruse...
Page Not Found - HolySmoke! There is also quite a lot of luck involved for a fossil to form form in the first place. It's quite reasonable to expect there to be very large gaps in the fossil record.
quote:- A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
A question I have often thought about, especially since seeing Kirk and his "crocoduck", is: what would a creationist allow as a transitional? So far it seems as though only some crazy monster that infuses 2 animals is going to be sufficient.
As a creationist: what would you even accept as a transitional?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3969 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Kirk Cameron beware! Tarantudog awaits you!
{Non-productive snark hidden. Stop it! - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Non-productive snark hidden. Subtitle changed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
When I suspended Hooah212002 and Onifre from the "Big Bang and Cosmology" forum because of behavior at the "Moons: their origin, age, & recession" topic, you were very close to being a third addition. Somehow I was under the impression you were a newbee, and thus I gave you a break.
Bottom line - Stop polluting topic with snark and any other messages that don't contribute to the debate. Mark this message as "noted". DO NOT REPLY, just start behaving yourself. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
thanks for that list Briterican
I recalled a article about the 'chinese bird' find that is in the list- reptile to bird
quote: there was an article in 2000 about this particular fossil. If its the same one they found in Liaoning Province, China, it was reported by National Geographic to be a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds. Its called the Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.But now some scientists at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology in Drumheller, Canada believe it could be a fake. Paleontologists who examined the fossil became suspicious after they noticed that the bones connecting the tail to the body were missing and that the rock slab showed signs of being reworked. If i have time i'll look at the whole list Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
there was an article in 2000 about this particular fossil. If its the same one they found in Liaoning Province, China, it was reported by National Geographic to be a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds. Its called the Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. That's definitely not the same fossil. As you can see from the anatomical description, it is stated that it has a pygostyle, whereas the Archeoraptor composite did not: its tail is from a Microraptor. Lots of intermediates between reptiles and modern birds have been found in China. It is sadly typical of creationism that of the many beautiful specimens to come out of China, the only one that you could think of is one that evolutionists proved to be spurious within months of getting their hands on it. Are genuine fossils of no interest to you? --- Archaeoraptor was a spurious fossil, produced by attaching the front half of an primitive bird (Yanornis) to the legs of some otherwise unknown creature and the tail of a winged dinosaur (Microraptor) too primitive to be even called a bird (i.e more primitive than Archaeopteryx). It is therefore, in fact, a composite of two (at least) intermediate forms, each of interest in their own right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
DrAdequate writes: the only one that you could think of is one that evolutionists proved to be spurious within months of getting their hands on it. it just shows that these are proclaimed as being a transitional before they have been 'proved' to be transitional shouldnt they hold back until they have conclusive evidence? And isnt science supposed to get that evidence before it draws any conclusions and makes any claims?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5296 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
Hi Peg
What would be your take on the intermediate fossils showing the evolution of whales, as clearly and succinctly demonstrated on this link? Page not found | Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
it just shows that these are proclaimed as being a transitional before they have been 'proved' to be transitional It was rumored to be transitional. Immediately upon inspection, it was found to be a fraud.
shouldnt they hold back until they have conclusive evidence? And isnt science supposed to get that evidence before it draws any conclusions and makes any claims? Who drew a conclusion? Who made a claim? If you read the Wiki, you will see thatA: it was found by a farmer b: The rumor circulated throughout the paleontological community that it was a transitional. c: It was of extreme interest to The Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah. The museum is run by Stephen A. Czerkas, who does not hold a university degree, but he is a dinosaur enthusiast and artist. d: he fronted $80,000 for the purchase of the fossil on order for it to be studied by one paleontologist Phil Currie. e: The National Geographic Society was contacted by Mr. Currie. (still not peer reviewed OR even studied) f: All representatives of the scientific community wanted both for the fossil to be returned immediately to China AND for it to be studied. g: Immediately as it was studied, it was found to be false. So, I ask again, who made what claim before it was studied? A rumor is most definitely NOT a claim. I'm curious to know where you found your info on this fossil peg. Another creo web-site? I find it daft if you still go to them for information. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024