Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,397 Year: 3,654/9,624 Month: 525/974 Week: 138/276 Day: 12/23 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another Chance For Creationists To Recite Falsehoods About Intermediate Forms
Peg
Member (Idle past 4950 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 5 of 30 (528423)
10-06-2009 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
10-05-2009 10:29 AM


how many?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-05-2009 10:29 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-06-2009 1:06 PM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4950 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 11 of 30 (529345)
10-09-2009 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Briterican
10-06-2009 1:36 PM


thanks for that list Briterican
I recalled a article about the 'chinese bird' find that is in the list- reptile to bird
quote:
"Chinese bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- A fossil dating from 10-15 million years after Archeopteryx. Bird-like claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized sternal keel (modern birds usually have large sternal keel); also has reptilian stomach ribs, reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian pelvis. This bird has a fused tail ("pygostyle"), but I don't know how long it was, or if it was all fused or just part of it was fused.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Briterican, posted 10-06-2009 1:36 PM Briterican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-09-2009 6:11 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4950 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 13 of 30 (529373)
10-09-2009 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Adequate
10-09-2009 6:11 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-09-2009 6:11 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by tuffers, posted 10-09-2009 7:31 AM Peg has replied
 Message 15 by hooah212002, posted 10-09-2009 7:59 AM Peg has replied
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-09-2009 8:38 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4950 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 17 of 30 (529388)
10-09-2009 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by tuffers
10-09-2009 7:31 AM


tuffers writes:
What would be your take on the intermediate fossils showing the evolution of whales, as clearly and succinctly demonstrated on this link?
doesnt it usually work the other way around...the sea creatures came onto land and not the land creatures went into the water?
If Whales provide the best example of transitional fossils, then im not convinced. Dawkins says the oldest fossil is 48.5million years old...and how many transitionals does he have? all of 3. Why isnt there a longer line of changes. The transitional fossil directly before the modern whale has arms and legs!
Why cant these simply be varieties of whale...or some other type of marine animal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by tuffers, posted 10-09-2009 7:31 AM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-09-2009 10:01 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 10-09-2009 10:38 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 26 by bluescat48, posted 10-09-2009 11:13 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 27 by tuffers, posted 10-09-2009 11:58 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4950 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 18 of 30 (529392)
10-09-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by hooah212002
10-09-2009 7:59 AM


hooah212002 writes:
b: The rumor circulated throughout the paleontological community that it was a transitional.
National Geographic called it a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.
they are only reporting on what they are being told i assume...so who told them that it was a true missing link? I dont know who told them but when i read a science journal i'd like to think its full of truthful and accurate information.
Now either, national geographic printed the article themselves and did not bother to consult anyone about the details of the find
Or
someone contacted National Geographic and gave them the details of the find which is what N.G printed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by hooah212002, posted 10-09-2009 7:59 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 10-09-2009 9:17 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 21 by Tanndarr, posted 10-09-2009 9:24 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 22 by hooah212002, posted 10-09-2009 9:35 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4950 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 19 of 30 (529393)
10-09-2009 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
10-09-2009 8:38 AM


DrAdequate writes:
Meanwhile, you jumped in and falsely identified the fossil that Briterican's list was actually talking about as being Archeoraptor without spending fifteen seconds to look at the evidence and find out that it was no such thing.
i said 'if its the same fossil'
it was only called a 'chinese fossil' in his list which is why i said 'if its the same fossil'
get a grip!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-09-2009 8:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-09-2009 9:40 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024