Evolution=Bad Science Fiction (lack of transitionals)

First Off you are an atheist,that I am sure ,and second I addressed your *re-question* once already.
As far as assertions go,I've gotten anything but a mouthful of parroting from you people.Wake up and give the scientific community some unquestionable facts.Evolution is the worst scam on 21 st century people

And you don't get any dumber repeating yourself either

quote:

---

First Off you are an atheist,that I am sure ,and second I addressed your *re-question* once already.
As far as assertions go,I've gotten anything but a mouthful of parroting from you people.Wake up and give the scientific community some unquestionable facts.Evolution is the worst scam on 21 st century people

---

If you're going to call people liars whenever you don't like what they say, you may as well pack up and leave. Your manners are atrocious and you clearly have no interest in learning anything here. If you are only here to berate and insult people who know more than you do, the wiser ones will start ignoring you fairly soon....

Greetings laserlover, I appreciate your reply, though this excerpt from ICR doesn't relate to the question. The question Mark24 is asking is what your own personal definition of what a transitional fossil would be. In science we must determine what exactly would falsify our claims. So this is why mark24 and others would be interested in knowing what you would accept as a transitional fossil. I think what they're basically trying to find out is if you have a masters in a relevant field as pertaining to this discussion (biology). Correct me if I'm wrong though.Thanks,GarfP.S. I would appreciate it if you could cut back on the stereotyping of evolutionists as atheist radical left socialists who are immoral. I'm personally a capitalist Pro-Lifer who is an advocate of our democratic republic, and who also accepts the theory of evolution. I know many Christians as friends, and my mother and father are both Christians who I both love dearly. The posters here haven't said anything about their political views (most not about their religious views either) and labeling/stereotyping people you don't know is dangerous and wrong -- racism, bigotry, and ultra-nationalism feed on this. Overall, I'd just like the conversation to stay on topic and not be so heated. I feel an end to stereotyping could help the conversation.Thanks again

Because we're talking about subjects in paleontology and biology. If your degrees aren't in those sciences, then they're not relevant to the discussion, and you've committed a fallacy of argument from authority by bringing them up. Not an attack, just attempting to show that high IQ doesn't make you impervious to being wrong. Remember it was you that brought up your IQ in the first place. Given your behavior so far I don't think you want to play the game where we compare ad hom attacks. Well, it could use some work. Remember that, in text, there's no way to distinguish between someone who speaks English as a second language and someone who speaks English as an idiot. Prostitutes get paid more than teachers. That doesn't make them smarter.

So what you're saying is, you give up - you can't explain why the fossil I mentioned isn't transitional?

Your article has nothing to do with (1) therapsids or (2) foraminiferaFrom this I conclude that you cannot yourself answer anything concerning these pieces of transitional fossil evidence, but instead try to dodge it by deflection.This is another dishonest creationist ploy.Enjoy.{{spelling corrected by edit}}[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-30-2004]

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

What I am saying is that you cannot get any dumber by repeating yourself. wink-nod

From this you can conclude that you *connot* yourself answer anything concerning these pieces of transitional fossil evidence, and instead try to dodge it by deflection by avoiding my original question.

minor correction: My topic says nothing about replacing the "inferior group" -- it just talks to the dispersal of a new species in an environment already populated. As noted in the topic there has not been any cases of extinction realted to these dispersal cases. enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Why don't you actually address the issues that RAZD brought up, rather than jumping on typos? What evidence can you present that contradicts evolution? Can you tell us exactly what you consider to be a transitional and can you explain why the examples already given donot qualify as transitionals in your opinion. Maybe that will get this debate moving forwards.

Thank you for pointing out the spelling error. I have made the correction.Now: still no answer to the question. Thus I still conclude that you have no answer. Your original question concerned the lack of evidence of transitionals, and I provided two that you have not been able to refute. Thus I have answered your post, completely.The existence of one (1) transitional is sufficient to dicredit the thesis that there are none.Denial does not make evidence go away. Ignoring evidence does not change the facts.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I have addressed the issue that RAZD brought up but he, much like yourself has chosen to address my questions with other lines of ambiguous questioning.Tell me when are you atheists going to get your heads out of your arses and start dealing with reality.It's a big world out there with many beautiful things that G-D has created.
Your inherent problem of atheism, by virtue of its inability to author laws on a lower noble level that pertains to the welfare of mankind, could not have risen to a higher level to understand the existence of God so as to devise laws in honor of mankind's Creator.These facts explain why atheists interpret the true science and the Bible as they do -- as a volume of "babble" and full of nonexistent contradictions. Atheism is not elevated enough to allow even its most educated subjects to understand the Bible or creation. Therefore the Bible puzzles them as calculus puzzles the dimwitted.
Atheism make dimwits of all its subjects and makes the most "learned" or "educated" more dimwitted than the ignorant. Not only does atheism prevent atheists from properly understanding the truth regarding creation as the only plausible science, but it prevents their minds from being elevated enough to understand the simplest common sense facts that there are no transitional fossils.

quote:

---

If evolution is fact, then millions of species have evolved during literally hundreds of millions of years as each species evolved from some preceding form and in turn gave rise to another succeeding form.

---

No, evolution isn't a ladder, it is a bush. Species branch off of one another, so we see the parent and daughter species living at the same time.

quote:

---

As well, evolutionary doctrine dictates that evolution proceeds by the survival of the fittest, and the fittest are defined as those that reproduce in larger or largest numbers.

---

Fitness is defined as the organism best adapted to their environment. The consequence of being the fittest is reproductive success compared to the less adapted of the species. Also, being the fittest does not guarentee reproductive success, since chance is also a factor. Fitness is the attribute and reproductive success is the consequence.

quote:

---

Therefore, the population of each intermediate species would be considerably large and would exist for literally tens of thousands to several millions of years.

---

Please support this. I can't see why an intermediate couldn't be around for 50 years and then disappear. We see speciation events that happen in less time than 50 years with intermediates lasting perhaps 10 years.

quote:

---

As an effect, enormous quantities of the transitional forms generated by evolution would have lived and died during that enormous stretch of time. If evolution is trfact, our natural history museums should contain large quantities of undebated transitional forms.

---

Living and dying do not a fossil make. Not every organism is fossilized. In fact, probably only a very small fraction (<0.001%) are even put into conditions under which fossilization will occur. Just for an example, carrier pigeons used to number in the billions in north america, and not one carrier pigeon fossil has ever been found. Why is that? Because fossilization is rare and only a tiny fraction of the sediments have been looked at for fossils. Where are the other transitional fossils, in addition to the ones already shown you? They are still out there.

quote:

---

The evidence for evolution should be clear, even for the untrained eye to see.

---

It is.

quote:

---

On the other hand, if creation were true, we would expect to find a very much different kind of record among the fossils. We would expect to observe that each basic kind of plant and animal, each morphological design, would appear fully formed with no series of transitional forms revealing an origin from some other basic type of form.

---

And every type of animal, from fish to mammals, would appear in the earliest strata. This isn't what we find. Never is a whale found in the same layer as a trilobite, even though they shared the same environment. Not once do we find a bison and a dinosaur in the same strata, but we don't, even though their fossils are both found in the same geographic areas. Creationism is refuted by the fossil record.

quote:

---

Science takes Creation for $1000 Alex

---

Alex: Creationism and Lamarckism.Contestant: What are refuted theories?

Little Toad,
Thank you for your response in such a timely manner.
I surmise this whole Ask A superior intelligence is a huge fake.I have submitted various problems and you haven't answered a single one. I am guessing you just make up problems so that you can give incomprehensible answers.I can now sense a powerful protective force field of ultra dense stupidity surrounding you, such that I doubt you could tell your arse from your elbow if had name tags on both of them. Read this slowly and pay careful attention: try clicking on a button to the bottom of your screen that has "submit" written on it in black letters. Take a look. No, I said underneath; not under your chair. Look again. See it now? Good! Now, before you click it and then click some other buttons with insults on them stop and think how incredibly inane you sound. If the intellectual effort makes you feel faint, get an adult male or female to give you instructions using multicolored pictograms and large animated(or not) letters of the alphabet.