|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Living fossils expose evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanndarr Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanndarr Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Deleted
Edited by Coyote, : Possibly off topic Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
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%
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024