Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 1:39 AM
21 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,790 Year: 9,826/19,786 Month: 2,248/2,119 Week: 284/724 Day: 9/114 Hour: 3/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Another Chance For Creationists To Recite Falsehoods About Intermediate Forms
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1 of 30 (528236)
10-05-2009 10:29 AM


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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Peg, posted 10-06-2009 3:26 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 30 (528256)
10-05-2009 11:30 AM


Where's the meat?
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
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3 of 30 (528326)
10-05-2009 7:52 PM


Re: Where's the meat?
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: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 30 (528339)
10-05-2009 8:46 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
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 3102 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 responded

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

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 6 of 30 (528569)
10-06-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Peg
10-06-2009 3:26 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Peg, posted 10-06-2009 3:26 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 2121 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 7 of 30 (528587)
10-06-2009 1:36 PM


Here's a lovely list of transitional fossils that have been found for you guys to peruse...

http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

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:

It isn't easy to become a fossil. The fate of nearly all living organisms - over 99.9 per cent of them - is to compost down to nothingness. When your spark is gone, every molecule you own will be nibbled off you or sluiced away to be put to use in some other system. That's just the way it is. Even if you make it into the small pool of organisms, the less than 0.1 per cent, that don't get devoured, the chances of being fossilized are very small.

- A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson
Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Peg, posted 10-09-2009 3:14 AM Briterican has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 8 of 30 (528763)
10-06-2009 9:43 PM


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?


Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Briterican, posted 10-08-2009 5:38 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 28 by Blue Jay, posted 10-13-2009 4:36 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
Briterican
Member (Idle past 2121 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 9 of 30 (529251)
10-08-2009 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by hooah212002
10-06-2009 9:43 PM


Non-productive snark hidden
Kirk Cameron beware! Tarantudog awaits you!

{Non-productive snark hidden. Stop it! - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Non-productive snark hidden. Subtitle changed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by hooah212002, posted 10-06-2009 9:43 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-08-2009 9:30 PM Briterican has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3883
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 10 of 30 (529321)
10-08-2009 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Briterican
10-08-2009 5:38 PM


Re: Non-productive snark hidden - Official warning
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Briterican, posted 10-08-2009 5:38 PM Briterican has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3102 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 yet responded

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

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 30 (529367)
10-09-2009 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Peg
10-09-2009 3:14 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Peg, posted 10-09-2009 3:14 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 10-09-2009 7:27 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3102 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 responded

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

    
tuffers
Member (Idle past 3448 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 14 of 30 (529374)
10-09-2009 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peg
10-09-2009 7:27 AM


Hi Peg

What would be your take on the intermediate fossils showing the evolution of whales, as clearly and succinctly demonstrated on this link?

.../article,4058,RDF-TV---Nebraska-Vignettes-1---Show-me-the-intermediate-fossils,Richard-Dawkins-Josh-Timonen-Judy-Diamond-RDFRS


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 10-09-2009 7:27 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 10-09-2009 8:46 AM tuffers has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 15 of 30 (529381)
10-09-2009 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peg
10-09-2009 7:27 AM


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 that
A: 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 10-09-2009 7:27 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Peg, posted 10-09-2009 8:51 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019