Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8966 total)
73 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, DrJones*, frako, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (8 members, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,408 Year: 5,156/23,288 Month: 277/1,784 Week: 164/211 Day: 12/60 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Embarrassed Creationist
Tupinambis
Junior Member (Idle past 3115 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 12-12-2010


Message 55 of 69 (596034)
12-12-2010 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by BarackZero
12-12-2010 1:12 PM


Re: really?
Oh man and I though I was necroposting in a 4-month old venomous snake thread....

quote:
BarackZero-
Macroevolution is never ever claimed to be "the reasonable assumption."
No, macroevolution is "fact, fact, fact."
It is "as certain as gravity."

It is as certain as gravity. Gravity is itself not 100% certain to be true, only 99.999999999999999999999999999999...% true. There's always that slight possibility that the FSM is pushing us down to Earth with his noodley appendages.

quote:
All who do not comport to these demands, not "reasonable assumptions," but demands can only be, in atheist-talk:

- a fundie
- a bible-thumper
- ignorant
- one who knows nothing about science



That's almost everyone who's an ardent creationist on the internet.

quote:
- someone who does not understand evolution

And that's pretty much everyone else. including you on account of the fact that you even mentioned "gaps in the fossil record".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by BarackZero, posted 12-12-2010 1:12 PM BarackZero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 1:05 PM Tupinambis has responded

  
Tupinambis
Junior Member (Idle past 3115 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 12-12-2010


Message 62 of 69 (596169)
12-13-2010 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by BarackZero
12-13-2010 1:05 PM


Re: really?
I find your lack of ability to stay on topic rather disappointing BarackZero.

The Cambrian Explosion, feathered lizards and Haeckel's embryology drawings have absolutely no relevance to your attempts to utilize "gaps in the fossil record" as a case against evolution.

Lets focus on these "gaps" first and THEN proceed to the other topics.
Let it be known that there has been no fossil yet discovered that is incompatiable with or otherwise debunks the Theory of Evolution. The fact that we haven't found an intermediate form to please you is absolutely meaningless for a few reasons.

1. We haven't uncovered literally all of the fossilized animal remains ever created in the history of geologic time.

2. As soon as a transitional form between two types of animals is discovered (like Najash) all it really does is create two more gaps to either side of it.

And 3. people like who you already have a pre-conceived notion of what is right and wrong will simply ignore the fact that an intermediate form was found an insist that more intermediates be found in the new gaps that were just formed.

Najash was a basal snake with diminutive limbs, showing an obvious link between lizards and snakes. Talk to the average creationist about it and the'll demand that more transitional forms between monitors and Najash, and Najash and true limbless snakes be found to satisfy the new gaps. I wouldn't put it past you to demand the same thing intentionally or otherwise.

Your lame attempts to simply change the subject are not new to me. Try something else next time.

Edited by Tupinambis, : No reason given.

Edited by Tupinambis, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 1:05 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
Tupinambis
Junior Member (Idle past 3115 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 12-12-2010


Message 64 of 69 (596191)
12-13-2010 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by BarackZero
12-13-2010 1:05 PM


Re: really?
quote:
BarackZero-
Then explain why there was yet another fraud when archaeologists faked a feathered flying lizard in China perhaps a decade ago. Why all these lies if evolution is so very factual?

For someone who's profile pic is a lizard I was very slow to catch this.
Archaeoraptor is NOT a lizard. I repeat, NOT a lizard. Dinosaurs are NOT lizards. Lizards are Lepidosaurs, have a three chambered heart and their legs are slung to the sides of their bodies. The Archaeoraptor is an Archosaur, has a four chambered heart and its legs are held beneath its body. The two are about as closely related as you and a platypus.

Am I nitpicking details? Why yes I am. But hey, its not the same as nit-picking typos.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 1:05 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by arachnophilia, posted 12-13-2010 7:35 PM Tupinambis has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020