News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Hi RAZD,



So the fact is, though they "appear" unchanged, they must have evolved anyway..... I think it's time to throw ones brain out the window and shut the eyes, irrespective of the visible evidence, in favour of "take my word for it, it happened anyway" ...(I refer back to CTD's animation above, as this would be a great time to repost it).

So the pictures really don't tell us anything right? They don't disprove evolution according to you and Linear.... even though they show no signs of change.... evolution occured anyway...therefore....perhaps these fossils are fooling us all. They just "appear" unchanged.....or they evolved in a way, and in a time where it was somehow missed, even with all the vast amounts of time and death the evolution believes has occured over millions of years. Conveniently any process of evolution had it's own hidden, quiet way of doing things undetected and failed to leave any visible proof in those particular fossils......BUT, it happened. These guys just missed the boat I guess, or were in the wrong place at the wrong time <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

This is unbelieveable (literally). Apart from imagination, speculation and "take my word for it, it happened anyway" One is supposed to toss aside these ancient fossil pictures, (real visible leftovers from our past that we are lucky to have) in favour of the unseen assumed past that the evolution has drawn up for us regardless. Why? because the evolutionist said it must have been so, therefore it is so. Evolution was so slow that we didn't really observe it happening - Or so fast we missed it. Or it happened in spurts/jumps, slow, then sudden, then slow, then sudden, and so clever, that the fossils in the pictures somehow escaped this process or at least give the "appearance" of escaping it. One will notice that they will adjust their theory according to the circumstances and if they are faced with pictures that defy the changes expected over these vast periods of time, (whether slow, or fast, or in spurts), they'll still claim evolution and say that the pictures do not disprove it. Only in THEIR mind it doesn't, because they're already convinced it occured regardless. But anybody else that has escaped the brain washing, can probably see these fossils certainly do not show any sign that evolution has affected them or taken place at all.

Apart from satisfying the evolution imagination and keeping the faith under all circumstances, how much more imagination and wishful thinking does the evolutionist require to hold onto their theory, even to the point of trying to explain why the fossils have shown no change and then expecting us to buy it? It's incredible watch them do it. They'll pull out all stops.



Evolution does not have to happen. That's about as close to saying "evolution may not have happened", which is exactly the point. What an admission. The alternative to evolution? Spontaneous appearance? Or did evolution just happen to pick and choose at will and somehow it missed the fossils in the pictures I provided (or at least it gave the appearance of missing them) but probably affected everything else (we just happened to miss the ones that it affected). Certainly the fossils have defied the changes that we would have expected after such long periods of time.... so you gotta find a way around it and this is the best you can come up with.



What you have failed to show in any of your post here is photographic evidence to the contrary. So far, we have not seen any sign that any creature is becoming something else, then or now! And certainly, if the fossil pictures are anything to go by, it wasn't showing any change in them millions of years ago either. Tigers, goats, plants, fish, sealife, insects etc etc. One wonders what else you have to go on? Charts, words, links....do you think you can start to come up with solid proof?

I should be bowled over by the impressive verbiage, but I guess I'm one of those people that prefer straight and simple evidence that doesn't require it as much. And unless you can prove to me that evolution happened that matches the visible proof I have given that it hasn't, (at least not in the fossils I've provided), then I hardly see that you have much left to argue about. There is simpy no convincing the unconvincable, even with photos of ancient fossils. I imagine I'll simply be wasting more of my time going in circles over this with the obviously brain washed.

Hi sosick,

Yeah I've watched it more than once also. A very moving testament. Perhaps one that may affect others too.

Except? What follows looks like a perfect example!

Look again - without goggles. Notice the stasis?

Means it hasn't happened to whichever type of life you're talkin' 'bout. Even in cases where lifeforms have gone extinct, they always exhibit stasis even in evotime.

Requirements for stasis, even under evolutionism: stable temperatures, food supply, predation, precipitation, um, what else is in the environment? Well, I think it's easy to get the picture. One last requirement: non-accumulation of mutations. None of this can be explained away.

No such thing. Aren't y'all the ones always claiming the global climate's changed & asteroids have wiped out nearly all species, and stuff like that?

Looks like they did "give it a shot". So what? What'd happen if they weren't maximizing every hint of a difference & trying their best to distance the fossils from the living fish? If there's one thing we've seen, it's that some folks hate like anything to admit any two creatures are the same species, and will dream up any excuse to claim they ain't.

So "scientist" is defined as... evopusher? But even they have confessed there's little difference between a lot of species, and the demarcation is arbitrary.

Wrong. Undefined "speciation" isn't "evolution" by any real definition. Why not frame an argument using real words for a change? Can't evolutionism survive in an environment of clear-cut, unambiguous communication?

Geneticists have already done so. No new information shows up in nature. New variety comes from deletions. This is what's observed.

It's also been long demonstrated in selective breeding. Want a mouse-sized dog or horse? You're out of luck. The genes for such don't exist anywhere in the pool. Genetic combinations for lots of sizes have been discovered, but the pool is what it is - there's your limit.

Furthermore, there's another kind of stasis that Darwin said wouldn't happen.See what I bolded? That means if humans had evolved from apes, the apes would almost necessarily have become extinct. They don't get to play stasis while they're being out-competed. They die. That's how competition works, according to Darwin's words. I think he'd probably consider humans vs. apes as a necessary exception (or he didn't really give it much thought, or he didn't seriously mean what he says here - none of these would surprise me.)

That's from http://darwin-online.org.uk/content...p;amp;itemID=F1548.1&pageseq=170
Letter 104. TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 8th [1860].

And stasis cuts both ways. Looking back into evotime, we find species existing in stasis and then -Boop! No sign of them. No ancestor - nothing. Works for most anything you can name. We don't see features shrink away into nothing. The wing, for example. Creatures have wings, back... back... still wings... back... back... gone! Wing, critter, all gone.

Almost works better going forward. Thanks to the minor god of evolutionism known to the rest of us as mutation, features can indeed become diminished - perhaps lost for good. Vision can degenerate, wings can shrink, lots of problems come along. But we don't see shrinking wings becoming hands, do we? They don't have the genes for that, so no we don't.

Now having said all that, I don't think stasis arguments can be used to disprove evolutionism in the case of any committed evolutionist. If it exists, it cannot be a problem "because we already know we evolved". That's how they think. The bulk of the record they don't never bring into the discussion displays stasis, so it's just ignored.

It's no good demanding evidence of evolution in any species that displays stasis - they see life & in their eyes life is all the proof one needs - it must have evolved or it couldn't be there because their religion does not permit them to admit that there even might be any alternative. Imaginary ancestry accepted by faith works just fine - better in some cases than the embarrassing frauds.

But it would be a mistake to forget where the burden of proof lies. Who has claimed the fossil record is evidence in favor of evolutionism? Now under those terms, all that stasis... not looking good.

It could happen. Source

1. What part of the theory of evolution requires new information be obtained by organisms in order for species change to occur? I say no part of the theory requires this. All you have to do to refute my assertion is provide a quote from an evolutionist that says new information is necessary for any evolution to occur.
So, even if what you say is true, which any geneticist will tell you it is not, evolution still occurred in those cases. Besides evolution is also consistent with what is presently known about genetics.

You are quoting me as if you found some population that doesn't change with sweeping changes in the environment. What sweeping changes in the environment that crocodiles live in have occurred between the time those fossils were alive and now?
Do you think that because the environment the fossils are found in is different than the environment that the crocodiles live in now, that they used to live in that environment and now live in the water?

Actually, I don't want you to take my word for it. Take a biologist's word for it. Take a fossil turtle, or frog or crocodile to a biologist and ask what the differences are between the fossil and a modern version of that genus.


As RAZD said, evolution does not require that all populations of organisms go through great change over any great period of time.
The environment for those populations didn't change much, so the body type of those species didn't have to change to continue to exploit their environment adequately enough to survive and breed new generations of their species.

This statement makes me think you have not looked at my examples (with photos) of transitional fossils or you have looked an choose not to comment on them.

Evolution is not a sentient being that picks and chooses. Evolution is a result of the combined effects from genetic differences in a population of organisms and changes in the environment that the population resides in. Genetic differences exist in all populations. If little environmental change occurs, there is little change in the population....even after "millions" of years.


I have shown you links to pictures of transitional animals. Did you miss it?

You show fossils that are quite old of animals that, at first glance, are the same as animals today. However, they are only the same on the order of all frogs being the same. You know they are not all the same. A biologist specializing in those animals could show you a number of differences between the fossils and the living species today. So, some change did happen, even if it is only that the individuals in the frog population are smaller now.

I have provided examples of transitional animals. I have given a simple explanation of the two major mechanisms involved in the change in particular gene frequency in a population of animals (evolution) along with an explanation of why your examples didn't change much over the great span of time. Can you explain, without using evolution, why the fossil record shows changes in population individual's body structure over time? Why are insects, for the most part, much smaller now than in the past, if evolution didn't occur?

I said it could happen - nothing more. I'm not so stupid that I can't observe patterns of behaviour.

http://www.well.com/~davidu/sixthextinction.html

Wiki's Extinction Event article says
It's not just the surrounding lifeforms (predator/prey, food supply, parasites, shade tree vs cactus, etc.) Temperature/weather/climate is also part of the environment.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png">
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png/800px-All_palaeotemps.png">
both are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

My jaw shan't drop open when I see both of you claiming these things didn't have a major impact. Evogoggles have a remarkable way of altering perceptions.

This is what I said.

You reply with examples of global extinction events and global climate changes then finish with...


The thing is you haven't shown that the global environment changed individual environments the crocodiles, snakes, turtles and frogs lived in enough that from an evolution perspective it should have either wiped them out or caused their variety to get a new species/genus population to develop. All the existence of very old fossils of crocodiles, snakes, turtles and frogs means is that throughout those global changes these 4 types of organisms found places that they could survive. That is not all that unusual considering the many types of environments that they can be found in today.

Let's not forget that the creationists here have not been able to answer the question as to why trilobites are at the bottom of the fossil record, dinosaurs above them, and hominids near the top. All around the world. No mixing. There is an effort to dodge this issue here just as the issue about varves, ice cores and tree rings has been dodged in RAZD's thread.

CTD cited the Green River Formation in Utah in an earlier thread here as evidence of organisms having been mixed together in a flood. He seems to think that this must be evidence of global, rather than local, flooding. Yet there is a very large part of that area called the Green River Shale, which consists of 4 million layers of varves, two for every year. It's geologically impossible for them to have formed in a flood. Any flooding that happened there was therefore localised.

Transitional fossils have also been discussed here, particularly the whale; and almost a year ago now, birds and dinosaurs. The person I was talking with at the time was quoting the Lucy's knee PRATT. In the case of the whale or the horse, or even humans, where do you draw a line and say, "That is 100% ape" and "that is 100% human" when there are no clear delineations?

This ain't wishful thinking, folks. It's looking at the evidence and making hypotheses which are not based on preconceived notions. I can't see any other explanation for the global sorting of the fossil record other than evolution, but if anyone can present a good alternative idea I'm listening.

Hey Linda,

And if you think they could happen a lot faster, the problem is the sedimentation rates of the silt and clay in the two layers are different, coarse in the spring from high runnoff rates and fine in the late summer to winter with low runoff rates. You can't get them to deposit faster so there is an absolute minimum time necessary.

At one day per layer - which is much less time than is needed for the thickness of the layers in the varves - you still end up with 4 million days of sedimentation, or a minimum of 10,959 years for the flood to deposit them. Seems a little different than what the YEC's would have you believe.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Hello CTD

Stasis is not a problem for evolution. There is no need for organisms to evolve if the environment does not change around them - they are already suited to it, and natural selection will continue to select for individuals who are suited to the environment === similar to previous generations.

What you need to show is lack of evolution in spite of strong pressure to change. Sadly isolated pictures of fossils with no reference to environment are totally inadequate for that task.

The mutations will occur and they will be subject to natural selection. Natural selection will continue to select for individuals best suited to the environment, thus it will select AGAINST large changes that show up. You will still have neutral mutations and you will have genetic drift, but these won't add up to much change of note.

Again, stasis does not mean evolution does not occur, just that it is slower than in periods of high selection pressure or opportunity.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Hi Bex,

No, it is just that a lot of evolution can occur without visible differences, so not seeing any difference does not mean it does not happen. Most of what people think of in evolution are changes that result from hundreds or thousands of smaller changes, changes that are barely noticeable even to trained observers doing no more than looking at pictures. Scientists look deeper than surface appearances, because they have learned to distrust them (we can discuss convergent evolution of sugar gliders and flying squirrels if you want an example).

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Linear, I have checked out the links to the pictures of what you believe are transitional forms.....and once again I must repeat myself. How can anybody KNOW if they are transitional forms? How do we know that these fossils are in transition from one kind of animal becoming another, rather than being what they are and always were? We can already observe the variation in kinds today, existing at the sametime.... so you are going to have big problems pinning labels of "earlier transitional forms" when you have them existing side by side. Which is why you guys manipulate the fossil findings of the past to fit your theory. Yet even the past is showing little to no change, they are fully recognisable. Evolution starts painting a picture of the past, we are simply told what to believe. They get a fossil, then draw a picture of it's gradual evolution, yet they were not even there to see if this actually happened. Evolutions LOVE extinct creatures, because this allows them to do what they want with the fossils and speak for it. Tell us what it is and how it came to be and what stage of evolution it's in and even match it with something else and make it all look like a process of evolution if they can. They love nothing more than drawing.

We cannot possibly know if it's a transitional form, without having the evidence of fossils going from simple to complex over time, the gradual changes from scales to feathers for example. Can you give me that proof? going from one kind of animal to another. I am not interested in drawings/charts, nor am I interested in fossils being put together deliberately as stages of evolution by the evolutionists. You will find plenty of animals today that share certain characteristics, but this does not mean one kind became anything else. It appears instead, if we are to believe in the fossil pictures I provided, that many of these so called earlier ancestors existed alongside the animals they had supposedly evolved into....so how can they be transitional? E.g. modern day birds do not look much different from the millions of year old fossilised birds....

What on earth does size have to do with evolution Linear? Have you seen what happens in more favourable environments to insects and plants? Notice the tropics and how big things are there in comparison? Notice what happens when life is nurtured into growing bigger because it's been given more nutrition and better environment...and you want to call this evolution? I cannot honestly believe what I'm hearing. If you get an insect in the past and it shows to be bigger than what we see today, not only does this cancel out evolution, but instead shows a deterioration. Greater size/growth back then, to a smaller size now is NOT an increase in information or things improving/evolving. So if someone grows bigger tomatoes today because of what they are using, do you consider this evolution.

I looked at the fossils given and this gives me no evidence of the transitional stages, even if the evolution attempts to place certain fossils in order and then call it evolution. So the nice drawings of it's gradual evolution are cancelled out by the fact they were fully formed then as they are now, and many existed around the sametime. They give a picture of the creature, then give a drawing of how it evolved. This is dishonest. It reminds me of this guy who owned a museum and was asked why there were no fossil evidence of transitional forms, yet it was being preached anyway (with the typical charts showing the evolution process) He admitted priviately and laid it on the line, that there is not one such transitional form that one could make a water tight argument out of and actually could'nt really give any. I could find that quote and repeat it here if necessary. He admitted this privately, and unfortunately for him the letter got out and he was very very embarrassed. His evolutionary colleagues were very UNIMPRESSED with him. But the man was at least being honest when he was cornered.

We have already gone through the legs on snakes senario and once again, the evoutionist assumes they must have been legs, therefore we're to believe they were without really ever knowing or observing this. Just assuming they were. We've had this with the vestigiary organs. The so-called leg like bones inside the whale, tiny as they are, are essential to that particular whale! And he doesn't use them for walking! this has been discussed Linear on here already and i feel like it's going in circles over and over.

Even if you found a snake with legs, how does this assume that it's a transitional form by the way? There are vast variations in life, and something we don't see today that has been dug up from the past does NOT mean it's an earlier transitional form. It does not mean one form became something else. Whether the animal exists today or not. The evolutionist simply cannot accept a creature for being what it is, they continue to say it's a product of evolution and this is what it once looked like (then we get a drawing of the stages of its evolution). I have already said that if the donkey had been extinct, the evolutionist would very likely have placed this as an earlier ancestor of the horse. They are basing this on assumption Linear, it is not based on fact, because we were not there. If the fossil pictures show that the animals then are much the same as they are today, then how can that be called evolution, even if you find certain traits are differing (just as you do today amongst frogs, or any other animal of today), when can CLEARLY see that they were much the same and a turtle was still as much of a turtle then as it is now, as with every other example I gave. We do not see half evolved creatures on their way to becoming something we can recognise. They are fully recognisable as is, because we see the same kind today. Wow, surprise surprise.

How can a dinosaur evolve into a bird Linear? Can you give me proof that scales have become feathers over time? Instead of charts showing me it did. How does a heavy boned dinosaur, evolve into a light boned bird with feathers? Bones are designed for flight, their entire structure is designed perfectly for what they do. How do you reconcile this with a dinosaur? Do you also think that as there are so many different creatures around, that a different species, does not mean it's an earlier ancestor evolving into a modern day bird. Especially when we find that the old birds in the fossil pictures are much the same as the modern day birds now. Once again, assumptions and this is all the evolutionist has.

They fit anything into their theory, no matter what. You guys are so confused, that you cannot tell the difference between growth (plants being bigger, insects being bigger) which we observe and have observed, and one kind of animal becoming something else. You want to label it all evolution, when you know full well what evolution ultimately preaches and by calling the process of growth evolution, you can say "see evolution is real". Nobody disputes growth or variation, but we are talking here about simplicity becoming complexity over time, or one kind becoming another and that is something you guys have failed to prove. Trying to fit it into your belief system is not proof. Drawing up charts is not proof. Giving me a picture of a fossil and claiming it as a transitional form because you say so, is not proof.

You are free to believe it, as this is what your side is preaching and you can take their word for it if you like. I am far from convinced, given that there is no evidence to back up their claims that these animals are in transition. Assumptions, charts do not cut it. Even the pictures provided were a picture of the fossil, but not pictures of it's transitional stages from simple to complex (or what we see today). And lumping certain fossils together and saying this one became that one over time and this is an earlier form from this one is once again, based on mere assumptions and the unseen past.


Once again RAZD, you've proven my point. No matter how little differences are noted, you still assume evolution regardless. Even if given vast amounts of time, even if the changes occured gradually bit by bit over that time period, we should still see much more simplistic life in those fossil pictures, that what we see today. THe fact is, they are fully recognisable, as I said to Linear....how far back can you take us RAZD to show us simplicity has become complexity. If evolution has occured, we would need to see SOMETHING happen. Look, get a picture of me at 12 and a picture of me now, and you'll see a big difference. Though the changes taking place between then and now were over years, they were gradual.

So why is it, we get a picture of all that time ago and there is still NO visible, remarkable difference to now? They have had millions of years and still barely a thing. I wonder whether you guys can consider that evolution may not actually be a fact, but I don't think that's possible. I honestly believe you are so seriously indoctrinated, that it's unthinkable to assume anything else. Even if the fossils themselves defy much change. What is it now? Internal changes, but the outside stayed much the same? How does that work RAZD? Any signficant changes must show at some point, there has to be something, even if those changes take vast amounts of time to occur. I think millions of years is more than enough to show us this took place.

Hi RAZD, just a little addition here.



Every consider that not seeing any difference may mean it didnt' happen? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />



Thanks for the link RAZD, but notice that one is already told these two creatures evolved from a common ancestors, and the flaps of skin they use to glide also "evolved" over time to adapt to their lifestyle. Where is the evidence that this occured? One wonders why human beings cannot do the same thing, and instead have to resort to creating gliders, aeroplanes etc (copying design) or diving suits and equipment so we can remain under water for an extended period. one wonders why we don't just wait for evolution to kick in, as we keep pushing the envelope until it figures out it must adapt and evolve a new structure.

See evolution brain washes the viewer into believing it's most likely occured, even in the failure of evidence to support that it did. One is really not supposed to question it.. I believe this is a big part of why people are convinced/indoctrinated. They don't question evolution, they accept it almost in blind faith and work everything around that, even if visible signs defy it occured.

E.g. (how long do you think we have been evolving) this is assuming we evolved and is a way of indoctrination. The person no longer questions "if" we evolved, but rather "how long it's been going on". They don't question and no longer think about doing so.

So it was hardly surprising to see the same thing with the sugar gliders and flying squirrels, though they are very cute and share similar qualities, which I enjoy seeing, as for me as a creationist, I see God's marvellous design/traits.

I got the answer right by the way, but I'm not fooled by the evolution push.

Would you give me evidence that this is so Linda? I don't mean linking me to evolutionists saying it is, or individual fossils themselves, but I mean how does one prove that they have appeared in order according to evolution around the world? I think you believe people have dodged your questions here, I do not agree. I don't think we have much to go on to be honest. Do you have any actual evidence that fossils are found as claimed?

Where is the complete geologic column?

Bex, I note that you again said above, "you weren't there." So do you also believe that forensic detectives should be put out of a job, and that a court case without eyewitnesses should be thrown out? Or does detective work only not count when the detectives are archaeologists?

I have no need to force any facts to fit preconceived ideas, though it seems to be a creationist's raison d'etre to make out as if I and other evolutionists have some desperate need to protect my beliefs and therefore will lie about them as necessary. Some others with alternative "beliefs" may do this, but I assure you all I do is look at the facts and follow where they lead. You know I've done that with mercury and alternative medicine. If I have to say that I think the evidence points to many people being wrong, I will, but I don't see it here. I've learned too much about science over the years and I've seen too much of the evidence for myself.

The information is everywhere to be found. As an example, here is what the fossil record shows for the evolution of humans. These species and sub-species were put in these places on the chart because the fossils and the rocks in which they were found have been dated at those ages. The same site explains, for example, that "with more powerful geological dating methods based on fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field or electron spin resonance, the earliest Homo erectus fossils from China have been dated to 1.9 million years ago." If we found an australopithecus fossil unambiguously buried in a recent layer of rock, that would indeed be a find to shake the world. Yet consistently, these fossils are found sorted according to the order in the chart. You could find a similar chart for many different kinds of organisms.

Scientists the world over compare their findings -- have done for over 200 years -- and they consistently agree to a remarkable extent. A creationist either needs to furnish solid proof that they are all mistaken, or lying. It always seems to boil down to this doesn't it -- the evidence is irrefutable so it must somehow be a tissue of lies, a conspiracy on the grandest scale imaginable. Do you honestly think that is a likely possibility?

CTD, I think there's a point above that needs to be clarified.

Index fossil:



The foram in question, which you found a link to, is only mentioned as a fossil find -- not as an index fossil. It would not be an appropriate index fossil to use for the Ordovician because its evolutionary lifespan encompasses several other geological ages as well. The link above should make this clear. Hence, the question as to why Woodmorappe would attempt to use it as such.

That requires a great deal of study. There isn't just one thing that can answer this question because the conclusion is drawn from many pieces of evidence. For Tiktaalik roseae just a small part of the evidence includes:
1. Scientists chose where to look (geologic layer, past environment, etc) based on other fossils that were tetrapods (amphibian-like animals) later in the geologic column and lobe-finned fish earlier in the geologic column.
2. The fossil found shows characteristics of both animals....ribs that expand...skull detached from the "shoulder" bones, fish-like tail....etc.
3. If all the different organisms that exist as fossils in the geologic column were created at the same time (in the beginning) then Adam would not have had room to breathe...much less lay down and go into a deep sleep.

You are assuming that evolution is supposed to occur to all the population of an organism, causing the previous species to disappear. What part of evolution states this? What aspect of the mechanisms of evolution, variation among individuals in a population combined with environmental pressures, cause you to believe that the rise of a new species requires the destruction of the old species?

[quote}Which is why you guys manipulate the fossil findings of the past to fit your theory. (Translation: Evolution Scientists know that the theory is wrong yet they monkey with the evidence to make it look like evolution is true, because they are all liars in a big conspiracy)

An explanation of why this can occur has been provided to you. Refute the explanation. Repeating the same statement does not make it more true.

Drawings are used in textbooks and shows on tv because they simplify explanations. You are again accusing evolution scientists of lying and deceit. It might be a good idea to back up your accusation with a little more evidence than context-less photographs of fossils.


Right after you tell me what characteristics a "true" transitional should have. Obviously, the ones I provided did not meet with your stringent criteria. That puts the onus on you to provide a detailed description of what a transitional creature is.

Again with the accusation of deceit.

Your "E.g" does not match your question. However, as I said earlier, no part of the theory of evolution requires the rise of a new species to eliminate the entire species that it came from. Since the mechanism of evolution is environment controlled, one population of a specific species might change in a particular environment while the rest of the species in a different environment would remain relatively unchanged.
For your "E.g.", no part of the theory of evolution requires that populations change significantly over time, especially if the environment remains relatively unchanged. Why do you think the theory implies otherwise?

Are you saying that transitional species should not be fully formed? If that is a characteristic for transitionals, then we have a problem. How could creatures that are not fully formed survive to pass on their genes to a next generation?

They were unimpressed with him because he had very little understanding of biology but believed that he did understand it. He was poorly educated about transitional species and the recognition of such, yet he spouted off about how there are none.

That's like someone saying he's a Bible scholar but doesn't understand Paul's explanation of the mechanism of salvation (Roman road). I am sure you would say that he is deluding himself concerning his Bible knowledge.

No, this is different. It is a fossil snake with real legs, not vestigial.

The Bible says God took away the snake's legs. Since, according to Young Earth creationists, there were no deaths prior to the snakes losing their legs, how can we have a snake fossil with legs?

Several facets to this statement. Hmmm.
An accusation of dishonesty or stupidity on the part of the scientists who should know their chosen field of study
Statement that the idea of evolution came about before any facts were studied. You have evidence of this accusation?
Restatement of the "we can't know the past, because we weren't there". My rebuttal:
1. Therefore we cannot prosecute criminals without video/photographic evidence of them committing the act.
2. Therefore, we really don't know if Washington was at Valley Forge, we weren't there.
3. Therefore, we don't know if the Holocaust happened or not, we weren't there and the "records" have been handled by too many people, and we can't know if they were tampered with.
4. Therefore, we can't know that Christ died on the cross, for our sins.

Explained earlier. Repetition does not make a statement more true.

There was an experiment that some scientists did (reported on the Discovery Channel) where they changed the gene expression on chicken embryos and resulted in feathers instead of scales on the chicken's feet. I will try to find the research papers involved. However, this shows that a small change in gene expression (mutation) could result in a large overall change (fully formed feathers instead of scales). Theropod dino fossils have hollow bones.

Repetition does not cause a statement to be more true. Please show me why you think the development of a new species requires the elimination of the old species.

The rest of your reply was the same statements repeated, so I didn't think I needed to respond. However, if I missed something that you feel requires a response, please reiterate it and I will make an effort to address it.

Now you change the story. You say Woodmorappe attempted to use these index fossils, but the original story was that he listed it as an index fossil. "Poor" or "appropriate" have no bearing. Evolutionists use these things & he is correct to report this.

Sloppy. Sloppy and unimpressive.

They know where they have to find "transitionals" because when they show up in the wrong place like Archaeopteryx, it doesn't help their situation.

We need a showcase. That's all there is to it. This has got to be a contender for the record.

Ask Darwin. Or think. Selection = "Death to the Unfit".

Why refute "because we say so"? You forget who has the burden of proof.

Someone has undertaken to demonstrate that a vast record of stasis demonstrates the transfomation of "primitive" life into all the life on the planet, past & present. So much stasis hardly works in favor of this story.

I don't see this accusation, unless you mean they've employed extrapolations & reconstructions based on fantasy to deceive themselves...

Can't speak for others, but I've covered this in my "Cracking Down" thread.

Looks like I see a confession that such practices are deceitful.

As Darwin himself said, it does.

Darwin allowed for few exceptions. The fossil record does not match.
Maybe because evolutionists have admitted this is a big problem? But perhaps you & RAZD know better?

Good one! If I smile much bigger my face'll crack. I know, he was supposed to explain that "all species are transitionals, so they're all over the place"... what a hoot! Faulting a man for failing to lie.

Another false analogy? Wonder how this'll play out...

Which snake? All snakes?

But you fail to answer the question.

Actually that's an astute historical observation of a pattern, and a prediction that the pattern would hold. Not a risky prediction at all.
Nonsense. There have always been valid methods of investigating history. I've a thread on that subject. But evolutionists don't often employ them. In fact, many are very opposed to investigating history from what I've seen.

Then they should have no problem getting lizards to grow feathers - just alter the gene the same way.

Or not. Tricking a feathered creature to grow extra feathers might just be different than tricking a non-feathered creature to somehow produce them from scratch.

.............

Now for further amusement, I present a Crocodilian Mystery.
Can be confirmed pretty easily.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Crocodile-Sex-is-not-Hotter-with-Global-Warming-41214.shtml
http://www.nepa.gov.jm/yourenv/biodiversity/Species/crocodile.htm
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/973

But considering all the drastic climate changes, there's no handy explanation for crocodile survival. It only takes a small change for them to lose the capacity to reproduce one sex or the other. No males born for enough years = no more crocs. Or no females.

Used to be they had an easy out: they hadn't confirmed in all croc's that temperature is so important. But they can't hide behind ignorance any longer. Temperature also plays a huge role in their digestion, and they have to conserve energy because of this.
Explaining it away
There's more, much more. But no real answer beyond "it must have happened".

The lifespan of a crocodile is peanuts in evotime. The climate changes imagined are a real problem, and the only "solution" is to assume evolutionism's true. The evidence is pretty easy to understand, and if the fantasies about the past were true, there'd be no crocodilians left.

The croc's still considered the "closest living relative" to T-Rex, btw. Feathered versions notwithstanding.

And other reptiles have their sex determined by temperature as well. But hey... once we have the "it must have happened" principle up & running, it can handle the rest just as easily and effectively.

You talk about agreement after bringing up human evolution? There's no agreement at all. How many different places do different "experts" assign Neanderthals? And that's just one of the candidates!

Not today. Yours is the burden of proof. With so all-fired much back-up, what's the problem?

As arguments go, we don't ever have to prove anyone's mistaken or lying. Those are separate conclusions outside of the argument that God created the cosmos and all contents thereof.

Correct, we were not there! I think anybody who interprets the evidence to fit in with their theory regardless, missing out important aspects if they don't comply or fit in, twisting or misinforming etc, should be put out of a job, and those behaviours have occured in the past as we have seen without so much as a slap on the wrist! Look what happens to a creationist when they do not comply with evolution. Did you not read the interview with the biologist Linda???? It was on televison by the way. Do I need to repeat that here again to give you an example? Let me know and I will, because I think that deserves repeating. Conspiracy theories? Liars? Who knows.....doesn't look good though. Yet you want us to believe, even with the hoaxes/ misinterpretations of the past, that we should accept what these guys are telling us...why? Well for starters, you're an evolutionist, so that means...it's a fact. Yep, by golly you got me there. I remember a time when they agreed on the embryo animations as being a true depiction also. Until reality proved otherwise. You know, sometimes I hate technology, because of some aspects of it..... but in a way I love it. This is where we have access to true photographs and scans <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

So the complete geologic column is a fact because these guys all agree with eachother around the world on the "evidence" that it exists in just the right order that proves evolution occured (how convenient). Not all scientists believe this Linda, whether it's a fact or not, not all agree. Do you think that all scientists are evolutionists and all creationists are simply religious or not worthy of a hearing? Are you aware there are creation scientists that disagree with the way these "evidences" have been interpreted? Of course you are. But the fact is, who has the loudest voice in the science community? Evolutionists. Scientists are not all evolutionists Linda, but they are the rule of the day. Fit in, or you're ousted or even made fun of. It reminds of me the elite groups in Highschool. Anything to fit with the crowd, but does that mean the crowd is right? That's another story.


You can assure me all you want, and reassure yourself in the process. I don't believe you <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. It's easy to do that with mercury, it doesn't pose a threat to ones belief system about origins, death, afterlife, laws. To say you've learned too much about science over the years and "seen" too much of the evidence for yourself is the same stuff you peddle on here "we have truckloads of evidence". Yet notice evolutionists don't have much to go on, or they'd not be on here debating desperately about it to try and prove that it's a fact. If it was, they'd be no need to debate, by this stage it would be proven beyond any doubt and would have silenced all arguments. Given the vast amounts of time they put on our history and all the myriads of fossils evidences they should have, and pictures to match, why do we come up almost empty handed? It is not enough to give a picture of a fossil and then a chart showing it's evolution. This is nothing more than bias interpretation of the unseen past. The only thing you can see are the fossils, you cannot SEE if they were evolving or not. Nor can you be sure that the ones you fit it in with are earlier transitonal forms or simply other species. Unless you can prove simplicity has become complexity over time, with pictures to match, showing animals becoming more complex and further resembling the ones we see today, in the stages we would need to see as they become further recognisable (e.g. scales becoming feathers), you are in a sense proving nothing. And escaping this by manipulating even your own theory to try and explain why we haven't seen that, is just back-peddling, side-stepping and hoping others will fall for it in the process.


Linda. This does not SHOW anything. It is just another evolution bias interpretation with a charts to match. I want you to back up those charts and claims with real life pictures to show the evolution of mankind, just as told on there. And if you cannot do that, stop peddling the same stuff. You cannot simply tell us it happened without the evidence, or fancy names to describe these supposed less evolved ancestors of ours. That is NOT enough!

Your hands are empty, but your arguments continue. No matter how much you guys argue to the contrary, no amount of charts of longwinded arguments prove anything, unless it's backed up with reality. You dig up an extinct creature and whatever you want it to be, it magically becomes just that. If it's an unknown species....then that too will be interpreted from the evolution perspective and may just become a less evolved ancestor of ours (if they have their way). Yet you do not know if it's any creature in a state of evolution or not, or just another species. How can you POSSIBLY know this??? unless you can prove simplicity has become complexity in the fossil record. That includes man or any other creature. The fossil record shows things were fully formed. There is no sign of them becoming slowly more recognisable to what we see today or being more simple and becoming slowly more complex. If the fossil pictures I provided aren't displaying simplicity becoming complexity, or showing any observable change from then to now, what makes you think it's any different for us? Finding a skeleton that displays different characteristics, does not mean it's an earlier transitional form, it could be another species. linda, do you ever actually consider that? Think about it, how many animals do you find today that have resembling characteristics, yet exist at the sametime? Why should something extinct be manipulated into the supposed "evolution of mankind" because it may not be existing today?


This is not an answer. You failed to answer my original question.

It is O.T. but if you get a chance, see Mean Girls w. Lindsey Lohan. The exact same dynamic shows up everywhere people struggle for power. Town council, PTA, Congress, amateur sports associations, corporate politics - everywhere! It's all the same childish stuff. The ones at the top hate each other, but band together to keep everyone else down.

Amen!

Actually, it shows a few things - take a another look:
"the similarly named and easily confused categories of humans and near human apes, in order of increasing inclusiveness, are:

• Hominini - modern humans and all previous human or australopithicine ancestors

• Homininae - humans and chimpanzees (Panini), our closest living biological kin (so close that some scientists have suggested their genus name should be changed from Pan to Homo).

• Hominidae - humans, chimpanzees and gorillas (Gorillinae)

• Hominoidae - humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans (Pongidae)

• Hominoidea - humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons (Hylobatoidae).

Ardipithecus, the common primate ancestor to paranthropines, australopithicines and humans, went extinct about 4 million years ago. "

Who decided on these confusing names? Um-hmmm!

Then scroll down to the chart with all the ?-marks. It's just like
<img src="http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/gif/cartoon.gif">
except there's a lot more ?'s and they're only trying to get from monkey to man - not atoms to man. I almost begin to think LindaLou's a mole working for us!

But I've posted enough today.<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/byebye.gif" alt="" />

You either aren't listening to what I'm saying, or don't want to. A fossil should not be used as an index fossil for one particular period in time, if the evolutionary lifespan of that organism was markedly longer in time than that particular age. What part of this do you not understand? Or are you having a laugh?

Would you like to explain why the Green River Formation is evidence of a global flood when there are also 4 million layers of varves there?

I've been giving evidence to back up what I'm saying, where is yours?

The chart I linked to shows where in the fossil record those different fossils were found. It is not the definitive answer about when, precisely, those species evolved, or when they died out. If you'd read one of my previous links, it gave a formula that scientists use to estimate these things based on the unlikely probability that any fossil found is either the first or last of its kind. We're pretty sure about when the last neanderthals were living though, and we know that they were a recently-living species. If you believe you have evidence that scientists are very confused about this, let's see it please. Let's also see your evidence for why the dating methods used to determine the age of homo erectus, which I also linked to, are wrong as well.

Bex, many of the things you mentioned in your post have been explained to you. What you appear to be choosing to do is say, "I don't believe it." That is of course your choice, but it doesn't say much for "creation science", nor does it lend that particular ideology any credibility.

You've been told how a simple genetic mutation can cause a chicken to grow feathers where it had scales. It's been explained to you that therapod dinosaurs had hollow bones. It's been explained that evolution can occur at different rates, depending on how the environment itself changes and how well the species can adapt. You've been given information about how some of those very "living fossils" are not, in fact, the same as those that existed millions of years ago; some have undergone significant changes, even though to the casual observer they look the same.

I've presented you with a chart showing where in the fossil record different hominid fossils have been found. I gave you evidence about how homo erectus was dated. I'll present you with the same question that I presented CTD with: would you like to explain how dating rocks by looking at fluctuations they record in the earth's magnetic field, or via electron spin resonance, is speculation, wishful thinking, and erroneous? Or is it just easier to ignore it all and claim it's a pack of lies?

So you're telling me that we can't be sure of anything if we "weren't there"? I wonder why creationists are OK with sentencing someone to the death penalty in Florida even when there are no eye witnesses in the case? After all, they "weren't there." LinearAQ asked you some other questions about what we presumably can't know because we "weren't there." Do you really believe that we can learn nothing about what happened in the past, through clues from the present? I suspect this belief is applied very selectively, especially where archaeology is concerned.

I find the requests in your post quite interesting. Let's SEE a fossil evolving, you say. You want me to provide you a picture of the entire fossil record complete with every layer of rock that's ever been discovered in the geologic column, along with every fossil, apparently. This information is all over the internet and in most scientific textbooks. You could go out fossil-hunting yourself in many areas of the world. Would any of it convince you? Not as long as you can sit there and brush it away as being a pack of lies. The link I gave you to hominid evolution does actually explain that the given dates match up with where those fossils were found in the geologic column, and it explained how exactly homo erectus was dated. Your comments amount to claiming that this is simply a lie, in which case as I said, please explain how the scientific dating methods used were wrong.

I'm desperately debating, am I? I'm just having an interesting time trying to teach some science and maybe trying to understand why people are so keen not to understand it. If a person feels desperate about their own position, that's where you can start looking for things like ad hominem insults or blanket denials of everything when they can't think of anything else to say and have no more evidence to provide for their position.

I'm paying attention. You want to blame the messenger who reports that these things are used, rather than the evolutionists who decided to use them in the first place.

I think that's in another thread. and it's not like anyone cares. In spite of your own source clearly demonstrating the invalidity of the glacier interpretations, you still cling to them. You'll take anything that meets your desires, no matter how bogus.

You want evidence that your ape man chart doesn't show man evolved from monkeys? Look at all the question marks. All it shows it that some people wish man evolved from monkeys. Wishes ain't evidence that something happened. Wishing isn't how history is properly investigated.

I could pour maple syrup over this and eat it for breakfast. There isn't a single shred of evidence for anything here CTD.



I want to know why you are defending Woodmorappe's decision to use dictyonema as an index fossil for the Ordovician age when this foram's evolutionary lifespan encompassed several subsequent ages as well. This isn't a scientific way to try to date things, though it is how someone might go about doing it if they want to show . . . say . . . some "anomalous" results. If you're going to continue to try to pick bones about this, then find an article which talks about the use of dictyonema as an index fossil (note the word "index" there) and link to it here.



In other words you clearly can't. I care because I see a conflict between a link you yourself provided in this thread, claiming that a stratum of mixed fossils in the Green River Formation is evidence of a worldwide flood, and the fact that a large part of that very same formation also contains 4 million layers of varves which could not have formed in a flood. Brushing inconvenient conflicts like this aside is not a very scientific way to go about finding the truth.



Now who's making stuff up? Please refer me to a single instance where I quoted information from my sister-in-law which you or anyone else here were able to falsify. I was speaking to her today about methods used for geological dating. Do you actually understand how scientists come up with the dates that they do? Or is it easier to ignore them so that you can claim they're all lies?



The chart shows you the geological dates for the rocks in which those fossils were found. Can you deal with it? Or are you able to explain how the dating methods used for the homo erectus fossil are erroneous?

Not a single answer here to any question anyone has asked you. I suggest you do some research and look at some real science sites. I also suggest you start with learning about how rocks and fossils are dated. This is a good, basic introduction. This is a good one too. You can find info there about paleomagnetics, which is one of the ways the homo erectus fossil I cited was dated. And at this site, you can see how a series of hominid fossils from Spain, species homo antecessor, was dated using not only paleomagnetism but also electron spin resonance (ESR) and uranium-series results on teeth. The dates derived from all of these methods corresponded. They show that the fossils are more than 780,000 years old.

Hey Bex, lets look at those goalposts again...

Yes, but that is not the issue: you claimed that your pictures were absolute proof that evolution did not happen. This has been shown to be a false conclusion.

You have not ruled out the possibility that evolution occurred at a level that is not visible in the pictures. The coelacanth itself is living proof that your conclusion is false, because it is not the same species as the fossils.

In science we discard concepts that have been falsified. Thus we expect you - if you are being scientific - to discard the concept that photos of fossils can be used as proof that living species similar enough to the photos to appear similar are not proof that these species have not evolved.

Do you agree?

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

No you don't. You know very well that I haven't defended his decision to use the index fossils. We have seen no evidence that he has used them.

Two false accusations in one sentence. Too bad there are so few here who will be impressed by this accomplishment.

No. In fact it's laughable. I've already said that particular piece of deception is weak. I have zero fear that anyone who isn't predisposed to believe it will be fooled. ZERO!

I'm completely unconvinced. In fact, I'm convinced the opposite is true. You simply don't care - not about what's true. You continue to post false statements after you know better. You're still trying to smear Woodmorappe, an effort which at this point has failed - past tense. You just repeat the same slander, oblivious to facts. This isn't consistent with someone who cares about either truth or their own reputation.

I'm not making anything up. Don't need to. Is David Seely your sister-in-law?
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf was provided by someone using your account. Post #254515.

You seem to have abandoned hope of demonstrating evolution from the fossils. All you talk about now is your evodates. Do old dates somehow prove life evolved? If so, do they also prove abiogenesis, stellar evolution, & cosmic evolution?

Hi RAZD,

A few links to add to the discussion here. The question would be, if evolutionists are desperate to hide any evidence that evolution hasn't occurred, why do they openly publish stories about "living fossils" and what we can learn from them? I've found a number of interesting stories at the Science Daily site about "living fossils," as well as recently-discovered transitionals:

Scientists Find Lamprey A 'Living Fossil': 360 Million-year-old Fish Hasn't Evolved Much

Fresh Fossil Evidence Of Eye Forerunner Uncovered

New Fossil Links Four-legged Land Animals To Ancient Fish

Of note is the fact that true "living fossils" such as the lamprey are extremely rare. It's obviously been a highly successful species.

You have a short memory. The geologist Kevin Henke stated in his review of Woodmorappe's book:



If you are not attempting to defend Woodmorappe's poor choice of index fossil, then what is your point, exactly? Henke has systematically gone through the book and pointed out a great number of errors, which he explains in that review. This is the reason why it's a book being sold to creationists, instead of a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.



Please explain, then, how 4 million varves can form in the same area where you also claim that there's evidence for a global flood. All you seem to be able to do is say "it's all lies." In fact, that's more or less what all the creationists on this thread seem to be trying to say, but evidence to prove this is sorely lacking.



You haven't demonstrated that anything he said in that article is wrong either, though you are welcome to go back to that particular thread and try. Or, like I suggested, you could make better use of your time by getting onto some of the science sites I've linked to and learning something.

The prerogative of the evolutionist: miscomprehension, feigned or real. Let's take a brief look.

Listing ain't using. Listing, in this case, is reporting usage. The report is true.

Failing to understand, once again. I have no obligation to debunk all bunk.

So you fail to understand that according to this source, the so-called annual layers at the site in question occurred far more frequently than 1 per foot, and even a rate of one per foot would yield an age of over 250 years for these aircraft. Okay... If you exercise your right to claim you don't understand, do you expect folks to conclude that I'm wrong? When has this trick ever been successful?

I see evolutionists advancing the idea that evolution has taken place in spite of the evidence of stasis. This type of thing isn't new. They argue that our information on fossil lifeforms is incomplete, and evolution should be assumed to have taken place in the parts which weren't preserved. The knowledge we lack is interpreted as favoring evolutionism.

But this goes back a little ways. From the source cited in my "Open Conspiracy" post #254612:
It's 150 years later, and we're still being asked to look to that which we don't know for evidence of evolution.

The burden of proof, they say, lies with those who deny that which they imagine. I can imagine all sorts of things, and designate them undetectable. I can call them invisible, put them in the future or the past, who knows what else... But that does not prove they exist, and the burden of proof is not on those who dispute their existence.

Not taking my advice above then, I see. Really, the best thing you can do to aid your discussion here is to learn more about the things you are actually trying to discuss.

Still no evidence here either. You're waffling about Woodmorappe's use of an index fossil when it's been very clearly demonstrated to you why he was being sloppy in that respect. You seem to have ignored the dozens of other errors that Henke, the geologist, also found in Woodmorappe's work. You continue to claim that "living fossils," as rare as they are, are somehow evideence against evolution, even though the fossil record shows that the vast majority of other organisms have not only evolved but become extinct at some time in the past. You ignore the evidence I've presented for where hominid fossils have been found in the fossil record and you've ignored the three different methods I gave you for how one in particular was dated. And you also ignore the fact that the presence of varves disproves a global flood.

Pretty consistent track record for you here so far then.

As I said earlier, you have not disproved anything that Seely said. If you want to pick more bones and again demonstrate your lack of geological knowledge, feel free to go back to the relevant thread. I'd rather not be sidetracked from the growing list of questions that already remain unanswered here.

The so-called explanations you've all given have failed miserably to give any evidence that simplicity has become complexity, even in all the vast periods of time you guys give on our history. You continue to state that evolution occured in total defiance of the fossil pictures provided and now stating - just because they look no different, doesn't mean they weren't. Or if there are changes (variation that we still observe today) means they were "less evolved", rather than just another species. Im sure everybody expected these kinds of excuses and in fact, I was already predicting them and had to laugh as they all popped out one by one <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Another species is not evidence for evolution, variation isn't evidence for evolution. And little to no signs of change in those pictures- does not mean they were evolving anyway. Even a child can see those fossil pictures and easily pick out what creatures they are. Even the insects and plants are much the same. They too defy any significant changes, but the evolutionist continues to claim and stamp BUT IT HAPPENED ANYWAY <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/taz.gif" alt="" />. The amazing convenience of the slyness of evolution and how it skips, hides, and does all manner of things that somehow escapes detection and observation and they still expect us to believe it happened. Open up people and swallow your indoctrination medicine. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yourmedicine.gif" alt="" />



Yes, I've been TOLD lots and lots of things! But given zero evidence of simplistic life becoming complex. And this has to be one of the funniest yet!

Now you're trying to pass off lab experiment with a bird and it's feathers as an example of dinosaur to bird evolution. This is about as insulting to anybody's intelligence as it can possibly get and barely deserves the dignity of an answer. Genetic interference/manipulation from scientists in a lab to get the feathers of a bird to grow out of the featherless bare skin on its feet/legs and you guys think this is evidence that the bird evolved from from dinosaurs (or reptilian-like scales evolved or can evolve into feathers) and that's your idea of science? The transference/messing around of information for bird feathers to grow out of bird feet in an animal that already has the genetic information for feathers is NOT evidence for dinosaur to bird evolution! This study, even if it is true, does not show reptilian scales turning INTO feathers Linda. This is meddling with already existing genes for feathers to GROW OUT OF the bare scaly skin on the feet. Do you guys not understand the difference? They have NOT shown reptilian/dinosaur scales becoming feathers. Let me explain something simple to you Linda - Growing out of something, is not one thing changing into something else. Skin doesn't become the hair or fur itself, no matter how hairy or furry... but hair/fur grows out of it (note the difference). Nor does chicken skin become the feathers. Yet, you want us to believe that scales (scaled skin) can. Wow! What an imagination.

If they have achieved this transference of feathers to the feet experiment, then it's quite on the cards they could do a similar experiement with us and perhaps have hair grow out of an area where it's normally bare (soles of the feet? Palms of the hands?). If apes had hair from their soles and palms, trust me Linda, they'd have done a similar experiement on us (transferring hair to hairless areas) and then passed that off as further evidence for ape to man evolution. And even then it's only transfer of information or a messing around with existing information. It is not added information/complexity.

First of all, I'm interested in seeing this study of the bird that Linear has suggested with the pictures to back up the fact it was done. Just from curiosity sake, so I can witness the results of this interesting feat? (;) excuse the pun). I wonder if they transferred this genetic information for feathers to a person, whether this would validate Big Bird as an earlier ancestor of us <img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/lsmbveuapr.jpg"> what's behind the feathers <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> . Reminds me of those fossils in a way, they too are donning costumes to imitate something they're not. Because underneath? They're significantly different.... You want jokes Linda? Because this is exactly what this is. Tell me, did the experiement on the bird make it any less a bird/chicken? Was new information added? Or did they just mess around with the information already there? Have they managed to turn the bird back into into it's reptilian/dinosaur ancestor? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I'd love to see that happen. Have they done an experiement on present day reptiles to see if they can stir it's scales into becoming feathers?

Deliberate meddling with already existing genetics in a science lab to perform this experiement STILL had to come from outside creative intellect and interference, yet you guys do not even see the irony of this and don't want to. Even this messing around with already available information took deliberate creative interference..... what must it have taken to achieve the rest of what we see in the universe/earth/creation? which goes beyond any 'creative" meddling/interference than man can achieve in a lab..... this experiment does not even prove reptile to bird, let alone proving that it could achieve such a feat all by itself from nature and time alone. There is no more evidence for scale to feather / dinosaur to bird evolution than there is for any other similar assumptions made on the evolution of all creatures and the supposed transitional forms.

Here is an ancient feather by the way: http://fossil-museum.com/fossils/fosil.php?Id=194
12 Millions years old with much detail:
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/hnvvjhzftd.jpg">

Feathers are SIGNIFICANTLY different from reptilian scales and all kinds of skin. They are more similar to hair (but even more complex). Use your brains! Whether hair, nails, feathers etc, they grow OUT OF the skin. They are not skin or scales and never were. Nor is there any sign of scales evolving into feathers to this day.

Feathers:
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/juvlwpvveo.jpg">

Scales:
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/xnhrjzcamr.jpg">


And this is Linda teaching us science? Wow, us un-enlightened peasants! CTD, Russ and Sosick, I hope you're taking note of her lessons! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The past ancient fossils pictures that show that birds always existed as birds and even around a similar time period as Archaeopteryx, who also had a complete set of feathers! If modern day birds are descended from dinosaurs, how did birds exist all those millions of years ago around the sametime as their supposed "missing link"? This to my mind is the kind of dangerous stupidity that defies belief. I think the word is "dumb on purpose". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/looney.gif" alt="" />

Here is a picture of Archaeopteryx: (apparently around 150 million years old according to evolution):
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/jwttkxcqxa.jpg">

Ancient bird, barely changed from modern day birds 140 million years old:
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/njfrxqibrx.jpg">


I've never seen the evidence in nature that dinosaurs evolved into birds, I've not seen the evidence in fossils, as we've seen have not shown this, yet an imagined scenario of such is expected to be accepted as a fact. Or a different species will be fitted into the mould they give it. I'm not so easily convinced as you are and it looks like evolution could feed you anything and you'd swallow it and this is a prime example of it, which casts doubt on everything else that you are proposing. If you can fall for this? You'll fall for anything and it looks like you'll do so willingly.

I provided you with photographic proof of the past showing fossilised ancient birds show the same characteristics as modern day birds, yet this too is "explained away" or "side stepped" as somehow being a case of.....appearances are deceiving. Well they must be Linda, because the fossils are obviously lying and fooling us all. Since those changes are significant, yet show little to no external evidence of change. What a miracle! Imagine having millions of years worth of small changes from then to now, yet giving no outside external evidence that anything has really changed. I've seen enough people change in just a few years from growing/ageing alone, yet somehow millions of years of evolution has barely shown a thing! Nothing more than what we see today. Even an extinct creature or one we have not observed today is still very much what it is - fully formed, giving no sign at all of simple life becoming more complex. Whether the same species or not.



Yes, you presented me with a "chart", and because of this chart, with all your "accurate" dating methods, this means that the proposal of ape-like creature to modern day man happened. I don't know enough about dating methods Linda, so you're asking the wrong person. But I certain do not accept everything an evolutionist suggests or has studied, there are also creation scientists who have studied too and oppose the dating methods.

Whatever the case, either way, it does not prove that any ape-like creature, or any creature at all dug up as an earlier transitional form of us or anything else. That is speculation Linda on the unseen past. Yes you can speculate or you want, but it does not make it factual because you wish it were so.



I gather you believe in innocent until proven guilty Linda? In the past, before modern day technology, there were possibly a great many more of the innocently convicted before they were able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the person did the crime (e.g. without the DNA evidence) or many more crimes unsolved and it still occurs in our day and age. Of course it helps that every human being has their own unique finger prints doesn't it? Ever considered that one? And you want to compare this scenario with alot of evolutionary assumptions from the past by modern day people who were were not there to witness it and don't seem to have enough evidence to prove that one kind of animal became another (or the ape to man senario) or dinosaur to bird senario. Psst, even the fossils themselves in the pictures aren't letting on either <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The only thing evolutionists CAN witness is what they dig up in the present (after the fact) and from there, they see everything through the eyes of evolution, because they have already assumed that everything evolved from simplicity to complexity. What can you do with people working already from an evolution belief? It's like me working on a crime and convincing myself of someone's guilt, even without sufficient evidence. Simply because I'm already working with that idea set in my mind. I wonder how often this is done!



Linda, even if the dating methods are correct, I am trying very hard to get through to you, that we do not know if one kind evolved into another. To dig up a fossil and find certain characteristics, does not mean this is an earlier transitional form. E.g. Imagine if modern day cats (the domesticated kind) had died out before we had a chance to observe them existing at the sametime as the big cats (bob cats, cheetas, etc). Now try and imagine finding some fossils of these cats and seeing the characteristics clearly showing it's of the cat family. Do you suppose that the evolutionist just might assume that this is an earlier transitional form? Given what they assume about us humans and everything else, I think the scenario is not just possible, it is probable. In fact, whatever cat-like creature they would dig up, they would no doubt assume the same, rather than consider "could it be another species of cat"???? Or could it be simply another species?

See this idea does not even enter their minds, because they are already convinced evolution happened, they fit everything into that scenario. Then they preach it as fact and people like you accept it willingly. I think you accept anything fed to you by an evolutionary spoon and spit out anything that smacks of design/abrupt appearance or living things. Yet you want people to believe on here that you're hunting for facts and even trying to teach us some science in the process.....<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/imnotworthy.gif" alt="" />.



Even if you were qualilied to teach science, I would hate to have been taught by someone like you at a young age before I learned to question this theory. Ouch! I'm glad you teach english and not science. One really needs to use their brain independently enough to question (for example) ape to man scenarios, because not doing that would leave one a sitting duck for indoctrination and unable to view the evidence from any other viewpoint other than evolution. Isn't this what evolution already does? Teach it from the evolutionary viewpoint before the person can question evolution itself!

No, I think I give up. The never ending theories and the ridiculousness of it and hypocrisy of their anti-religious stances of it bores me brains out already.

If that's how they want to live their lives it's their business I suppose.

rock worshippers.

Hello RAZD,


It is very much the issue. The fact is, we have not seen evolution take place, nor has it been observed from fossils themselves, yet you conclude that it happened anyway and then expect me to believe the same because "you guys say so". You have all come up with the most pathetic excuses possible, in an attempt to explain why the fossils show no sign or little signs of change. Totally recognisable for what they are and what they have continued to be (whether fish, amphibian, spider, tiger).

As I said before, evolutions excuse is - so slow we didn't observe it. So fast we missed it. Or it came in bursts. Even if this all happened in the manner you have suggested, from then till now, no matter how the process occured, there should and WOULD be SOMETHING as a testament to this fact and there isn't.


lol! Even if the coelacanth is another species of fish, how on earth does this rule out that all these things have shown no sign of simplicity becoming complexity? Whether fish, other marine life, whatever it is, fully formed and most of what I provided is much the same or identical as the same today. And you're quibbling over a fish.....I wonder how you manage to blanket out the rest in the process and then convince yourself that if it's another species of fish, this means it's an earlier transitional form - even though by all signs, it's a fish! IT's not something becoming something else.

The thing is, I do not need to prove a thing, the pictures have already given clear testament to the lack of evolution all by themselves. Clearly the information is already present to give themselves the appearance of what they were then, to what they continue to be now. Without that information, their externals would reflect this and be evident that they were incomplete.

I feel much the same Sosick. However, it's everybody's responsibility to educate themselves I guess. This is why I searched for actual evidence of fossils and it worked well because even with the old age earth dating methods on them, it backfired on the evolutionist. Millions of years and still don't show much has changed.

BUT ...... WAHHHHHHHHHHH it happened anyway. WAHHHHH , you're not understanding the process of evolution. You seem to be saying all these scientists are liars....and on it goes.

Either way, they'll evolve their theory to suit whatever situation they're in and if they're cornered by visible lack of proof that anything has undergone such changes? Then sit back and enjoy the laugh (or agony ) as the excuses come rolling out .

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll keep my eye out for it and may give it a view. Getting more than enough entertainment on here though (depending on which way you look at it).


Yeah, isn't it amazing how we evolved CTD? We even evolved the ability to evolve ideas about our own evolution.....I wonder if the apes are catching on yet. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


Thanks for reposting the animation <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> That pretty much sums it up. Atoms to man? I admire the evolutionists feat...the fossils aren't telling either. I wonder why they're keeping their evolution a secret?

I thought this was worth posting, as it outlines it all much better than I could. Taken from
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter7.php#53 In case the link gets ignored, I decided to copy and paste.

ORIGIN OF BIRDS AND MAMMALS

According to the theory of evolution, life originated and evolved in the sea and then was transported onto land by amphibians. This evolutionary scenario also suggests that amphibians evolved into reptiles, creatures living only on land. This scenario is again implausible, due to the enormous structural differences between these two classes of animals. For instance, the amphibian egg is designed for developing in water whereas the amniotic egg is designed for developing on land. A "step by step" evolution of an amphibian is out of the question, because without a perfect and fully-designed egg, it is not possible for a species to survive. Moreover, as usual, there is no evidence of transitional forms that were supposed to link amphibians with reptiles. Evolutionist paleontologist and an authority on vertebrate paleontology, Robert L. Carroll has to accept that "the early reptiles were very different from amphibians and that their ancestors could not be found yet."44

Yet the hopelessly doomed scenarios of the evolutionists are not over yet. There still remains the problem of making these creatures fly! Since evolutionists believe that birds must somehow have been evolved, they assert that they were transformed from reptiles. However, none of the distinct mechanisms of birds, which have a completely different structure from land-dwelling animals, can be explained by gradual evolution. First of all, the wings, which are the exceptional traits of birds, are a great impasse for the evolutionists. One of the Turkish evolutionists, Engin Korur, confesses the impossibility of the evolution of wings:

"The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs came into being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs to be enlightened."45

The question of how the perfect structure of wings came into being as a result of consecutive haphazard mutations remains completely unanswered. There is no way to explain how the front arms of a reptile could have changed into perfectly functioning wings as a result of a distortion in its genes (mutation).

Moreover, just having wings is not sufficient for a land organism to fly. Land-dwelling organisms are devoid of many other structural mechanisms that birds use for flying. For example, the bones of birds are much lighter than those of land-dwelling organisms. Their lungs function in a very different way. They have a different muscular and skeletal system and a very specialised heart-circulatory system. These features are pre-requisites of flying needed at least as much as wings. All these mechanisms had to exist at the same time and altogether; they could not have formed gradually by being "accumulated". This is why the theory asserting that land organisms evolved into aerial organisms is completely fallacious.

All of these bring another question to the mind: even if we suppose this impossible story to be true, then why are the evolutionists unable to find any "half-winged" or "single-winged" fossils to back up their story?

Another Alleged Transitional Form: Archæopteryx Evolutionists pronounce the name of one single creature in response. This is the fossil of a bird called Archæopteryx, one of the most widely-known so-called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists still defend. Archæopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archæopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time.

SPECIAL LUNGS FOR BIRDS
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/yxwtzbtsmd.jpg">
The anatomy of birds is very different from that of reptiles, their supposed ancestors. Bird lungs function in a totally different way from those of land-dwelling animals. Land-dwelling animals breathe in and out from the same air vessel. In birds, while the air enters into the lung from the front, it goes out from the back. God created This this distinct system "design" is specially made for birds, which need great amounts of oxygen during flight. It is impossible for such a structure to evolve from the reptile lung.

However, the latest studies of Archæopteryx fossils indicate that this creature is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds. (please see above where I posted the pictures).

The thesis that Archæopteryx was a "half-bird" that could not fly perfectly was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago. The absence of a sternum (breastbone) in this creature was held up as the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. (The sternum is a bone found under the thorax to which the muscles required for flight are attached. In our day, this breastbone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats, a flying mammal which belongs to a very different family.)

However, the seventh Archæopteryx fossil, which was found in 1992, caused great astonishment among evolutionists. The reason was that in this recently discovered fossil, the breastbone that was long assumed by evolutionists to be missing was discovered to have existed after all. This fossil was described in Nature magazine as follows:

The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archæopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles.46

This discovery invalidated the mainstay of the claims that Archæopteryx was a half-bird that could not fly properly.

Moreover, the structure of the bird's feathers became one of the most important pieces of evidence confirming that Archæopteryx was a flying bird in the real sense. The asymmetric feather structure of Archæopteryx is indistinguishable from that of modern birds, and indicates that it could fly perfectly well. As the eminent paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states, "because of its feathers [Archæopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird."47

Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archæopteryx's feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. As was discussed above, reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat fluctuates with the temperature of their environment, rather than being homeostatically regulated. A very important function of the feathers on birds is the maintenance of a constant body temperature. The fact that Archæopteryx had feathers showed that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to regulate its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs.

Speculations of Evolutionists: The Teeth and Claws of Archæopteryx Two important points evolutionist biologists rely on when claiming Archæopteryx was a transitional form, are the claws on its wings and its teeth.

It is true that Archæopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its mouth, but these traits do not imply that the creature bore any kind of relationship to reptiles. Besides, two bird species living today, Taouraco and Hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto branches. These creatures are fully birds, with no reptilian characteristics. That is why it is completely groundless to assert that Archæopteryx is a transitional form just because of the claws on its wings.

Neither do the teeth in Archæopteryx's beak imply that it is a transitional form. Evolutionists make a purposeful trickery by saying that these teeth are reptile characteristics, since teeth are not a typical feature of reptiles. Today, some reptiles have teeth while others do not. Moreover, Archæopteryx is not the only bird species to possess teeth. It is true that there are no toothed birds in existence today, but when we look at the fossil record, we see that both during the time of Archæopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly recently, a distinct bird genus existed that could be categorised as "birds with teeth".

The most important point is that the tooth structure of Archæopteryx and other birds with teeth is totally different from that of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The well-known ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D. Steward, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Archæopteryx and other similar birds have teeth with flat-topped surfaces and large roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, are protuberant like saws and have narrow roots.48

These researchers also compared the wrist bones of Archæopteryx and their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them.49

Studies by anatomists like S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, and A.D. Walker have revealed that some of the similarities that John Ostrom and others have seen between Archæopteryx and dinosaurs were in reality misinterpretations.50

All these findings indicate that Archæopteryx was not a transitional link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called "toothed birds".

ARCHAEOPTERYX AND OTHER ANCIENT BIRD FOSSILS

While evolutionists have for decades been proclaiming Archæopteryx to be the greatest evidence for their scenario concerning the evolution of birds, some recently-found fossils invalidate that scenario in other respects.

Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, two paleontologists at the Chinese Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology, discovered a new bird fossil in 1995, and named it Confuciusornis. This fossil is almost the same age as Archæopteryx (around 140 million years), but has no teeth in its mouth. In addition, its beak and feathers shared the same features as today's birds. Confuciusornis has the same skeletal structure as modern birds, but also has claws on its wings, just like Archæopteryx. Another structure peculiar to birds called the "pygostyle", which supports the tail feathers, was also found in Confuciusornis. In short, this fossil-which is the same age as Archæopteryx, which was previously thought to be the earliest bird and was accepted as a semi-reptile-looks very much like a modern bird. This fact has invalidated all the evolutionist theses claiming Archæopteryx to be the primitive ancestor of all birds.51

THE DESIGN OF THE BIRD FEATHERS
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/kyplhsekif.jpg">
When bird feathers are examined in detail, it is seen that they are made up of thousands of tiny tendrils attached to one another with hooks. This unique design work of creation results in superior aerodynamic performance.

The theory of evolution, which claims that birds evolved from reptiles, is unable to explain the huge differences between these two different living classes. In terms of such features as their skeleton structure, lung systems, and warm-blooded metabolism, birds are very different from reptiles. Another trait that poses an insurmountable gap between birds and reptiles is the feathers of birds which have a form entirely peculiar to them.

The bodies of reptiles are covered with scales, whereas the bodies of birds are covered with feathers. Since evolutionists consider reptiles the ancestor of birds, they are obliged to claim that bird feathers have evolved from reptile scales. However, there is no similarity between scales and feathers.

A professor of physiology and neurobiology from the University of Connecticut, A.H. Brush, accepts this reality although he is an evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different (in feathers and scales)."1 Moreover, Prof. Brush examines the protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among vertebrates".2

There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, "feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, as an'undeniably unique' character distinguishing birds" as Prof. Brush states.3 Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal structure has yet been detected that provides an origin for bird feathers.4

In 1996, paleontologists made abuzz about fossils of a so-called feathered dinosaur, called Sinosauropteryx. However, in 1997, it was revealed that these fossils had nothing to do with birds and that they were not modern feathers.5

On the other hand, when we examine bird feathers closely, we come across a very complex design that cannot be explained by any evolutionary process. The famous ornithologist Alan Feduccia states that "every feature of them has aerodynamic functions. They are extremely light, have the ability to lift up which increases in lower speeds, and may return to their previous position very easily". Then he continues, "I cannot really understand how an organ perfectly designed for flight may have emerged for another need at the beginning".6 The design of feathers also compelled Charles Darwin to ponder them. Moreover, the perfect aesthetics of the peafowl's feathers had made him "sick" (his own words). In a letter he wrote to Asa Gray on April 3, 1860, he said "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint..."! And then continued: "...and now trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" 7


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers", Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 9, 1996, s. 132.
2 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers", s. 131.
3 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers", s. 133.
4 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers", s. 131.
5"Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur", Science, Cilt 278, 14 Kasým 1997, s. 1229.
6 Douglas Palmer, "Learning to Fly", (Review of The Origin of and Evolution of Birds by Alan Feduccia, Yale University Press, 1996), New Scientist, Cilt 153, 1 Mart 1997, s. 44.
7 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason. Boston: Gambit, 1971, s. 101.

Another fossil unearthed in China, caused even greater confusion. In November 1996, the existence of a 130-million-year-old bird named Liaoningornis was announced in Science by L. Hou, L. D. Martin, and Alan Feduccia. Liaoningornis had a breastbone to which the muscles for flight were attached, just as in modern birds. This bird was indistinguishable from modern birds also in other respects, too. The only difference was the teeth in its mouth. This showed that birds with teeth did not possess the primitive structure alleged by evolutionists.52 This was stated in an article in Discover "Whence came the birds? This fossil suggests that it was not from dinasour stock".53

Another fossil that refuted the evolutionist claims regarding Archæopteryx was Eoalulavis. The wing structure of Eoalulavis, which was said to be some 25 to 30 million years younger than Archæopteryx, was also observed in modern slow-flying birds. This proved that 120 million years ago, there were birds indistinguishable from modern birds in many respects flying in the skies.54

These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archæopteryx nor other ancient birds similar to it were transitional forms. The fossils do not indicate that different bird species evolved from each other. On the contrary, the fossil record proves that today's modern birds and some archaic birds such as Archæopteryx actually lived together at the same time. Some of these bird species, such as Archæopteryx and Confuciusornis, have become extinct, and only some of the species that once existed have been able to survive down to the present day.

In brief, several features of Archæopteryx indicate that this creature was not a transitional form. The overall anatomy of Archæopteryx imply stasis, not evolution. Paleontologist Robert Carroll has to admit that:

"The geometry of the flight feathers of Archæopteryx is identical with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. The way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the range of modern birds… According to Van Tyne and Berger, the relative size and shape of the wing of Archæopteryx are similar to that of birds that move through restricted openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves, woodcocks, woodpeckers, and most passerine birds… The flight feathers have been in stasis for at least 150 million years"… 55

On the other hand, the "temporal paradox" is one of the facts that deal the fatal blow to the evolutionist allegations about Archæopteryx. In his book Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells remarks that Archæopteryx has been turned into an "icon" of the theory of evolution, whereas evidence clearly shows that this creature is not the primitive ancestor of birds. According to Wells, one of the indications of this is that theropod dinosaurs—the alleged ancestors of Archæopteryx—are actually younger than Archæopteryx:

Two-legged reptiles that ran along the ground, and had other features one might expect in an ancestor of Archæopteryx, appear later.56

44 Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1988, p. 198.
45 Engin Korur, "Gözlerin ve Kanatlarýn Sýrrý" (The Mystery of the Eyes and the Wings), Bilim ve Teknik, No. 203, October 1984, p. 25.
46 Nature, Vol 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401.
47 Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961, p. 310.
48 L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whetstone, The Auk, Vol 98, 1980, p. 86.
49 Ibid, p. 86; L. D. Martin "Origins of Higher Groups of Tetrapods", Ithaca, New York: Comstock Publising Association, 1991, pp. 485, 540.
50 S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, Vol 69, 1985, p. 178; A. D. Walker, Geological Magazine, Vol 177, 1980, p. 595.
51 Pat Shipman, "Birds do it... Did Dinosaurs?", New Scientist, February 1, 1997, p. 31.
52"Old Bird", Discover, March 21, 1997.
53 Ibid.
54 Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?", p. 28.
55 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 280-81.

THE IMAGINARY BIRD-DINOSAUR LINK

The bird below, named Confuciusornis, is the same age as Archæopteryx
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/lztcsuyyft.jpg">

The claim of evolutionists trying to present Archæopteryx as a transitional form is that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. However, one of the most famous ornithologists in the world,

Professor Alan Feduccia, pictured below:
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/tzhkoetzur.jpg">
from the University of North Carolina, opposes the theory that birds are related to dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist himself. Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird evolution:

"Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century".56

Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University of Kansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on the subject, he states:

"To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it".57

TO SUM UP, THE SCENARIO OF THE "EVOLUTION OF BIRDS" ERECTED SOLEY ON THE BASIS OF ARCHAEOPTERYX, IS NOTHING MORE THAN A PRODUCT OF PREJUDICES AND WISHFUL THINKING OF EVOLUTIONISTS

Hi Bex,

I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you...or running away. I have a number of pressing issues (children's college graduation, contract bid for NASA support.) that are keeping me from providing the detail that you requested...especially the photographic evidence concerning chicken-dinos and scales to feathers. The little bit of research I have done shows this to be a lengthy and difficult proposition, that I cannot complete quickly due to my other commitments.

On the flip side, I am unsure that the effort is not a waste of my time, anyway. You have often implied that the majority of biologists are part of a colossal conspiracy to deceive the general population, either knowingly or unknowingly. I could produce peer-reviewed papers and photos showing that chickens had been produced with scales instead of feathers (I mistakenly said the opposite in an earlier post). Then you would refute it by saying that the researchers are liars, without producing one piece of evidence to show that they are indeed lying. How am I supposed to respond to that?

You say any child can see that the fossils didn't change. However, few children can tell you the difference between different kinds of frogs, or turtles, or birds. For them, they are all the same. Is that the way you feel also? Is that fossil turtle exactly the same as turtles now? If it is, then tell me what species it is. If not, then how can you say that change doesn't occur?

I read the site that made those claims about bird evolution, and eye evolution. Don't you think it is unusual for them to have quotes that are over 20 years old that make proclamations about scientific knowledge and then apply it to the today's scientific conclusions from research conducted since then? I would think that science has advanced a bit since then and more discoveries have been made.

For my part, I have to question their abilities in scientific fields or their integrity. They call the evolutionists deceitful and then pull tricks like that to support their conclusions about scientists.

S.J. Gould, naturally. Source, for now. (I may try & find it in fuller context.)

Been looking into this geology biz. Discovered some cool resources. Much of George McCready Price's writing is available online. Edit: Some of the links are to buy, but others are to online pubic domain copies
http://www.creationism.org/books/price/PredicmtEvol/PredicmtAuthor.htm
http://wiki.creation.org/index.php/George_McCready_Price
Classic work, and since philosophies haven't changed much & the long-desired evidence still hasn't turned up, most of what he says is old, but not obsolete.
Illogical Geology is a good starter article.The article explains well the origin and persistence of the onion-coat theory. Points out a few problems along the way.

Hi Linear,

I didn't think you were ignoring me. I don't expect people to be able to be on here answering each and every post and I hope they don't expect the same of me. I also have "some" life outside of this and being on here can take up my time and I dont always find it an enjoyable use of my time either. So I like to have much-needed breaks from this particular forum.

Ok, I have to respond here and ask that you re-read my statements Linear. You have accused me (again) of something I did not say regarding the chicken experiment. It's healthy to question what the science community tells us, because people are limited (no matter how intelligent they are), prone to bias, prone to assumptions and manipulation, prone to error and even prone to fraud. I don't care which community they belong to, science, medical or what. Sometimes it's healthy to request substance to back up claims and if that substance does not add up, or too much is missing, and you find more assumptions than actual proof...this can be a form of indoctrination/manipulation. It is not just a good use of our intelligence, but it is a good use of basic common sense.

Look, I have not personally viewed those studies you spoke of, I have not seen pictures to back up the fact they performed or even achieved this, nor have I heard of it, nor was I given even the source of it! And then you expect me to swallow it like a good little person and accept that the guys in white coats have it all nailed <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/graduation.gif" alt="" />, yet it's ok for you guys to ask for proof from us? hmmmm. Yet...the burden of proof actually lies on the evolutionist. Their theory is being taught as fact in the science classroom all over the world using tax payers dollars in the process....and you don't think they have any obligation to provide substantial evidence?

Do I believe the people behind the study you spoke of? Not sure, probably they did, possibly they didn't. And really.....so what if they had? it doesn't prove dinosaur to bird evolution as I have stated for many reasons. Even a dumbie wouldn't fall for that as "proof".

I trust God, but I have a few issues trusting what we're "told" by the science community.....as much as I have issues trusting what we are told by the "medical community (drug companies). There have been hoaxes in the past or things we've been told that have been discovered as either a complete outright frauds, or an exaggeration and twisting of what was actually found or many assumptions passed off as fact and charts to show how "it happened". When I state something on here, people always cry GIVE ME EVIDENCE. Yet, if I ask for the same? suddenly the walls go up and it's "Are you calling these people liars"? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/reallymad.gif" alt="" /> "Do you think it's some kind of conspiracy?" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/reallymad.gif" alt="" />.

Linear, whatever quotes were given, however old they were, they were given alongside the evidence (pictures) and there was far more than just quotes, but information also, all backing eachother up. No matter how old, or how modern, there is little one can do about in-your- face pictures that do not show any signs of reptiles/dinosaurs evolving into birds and do not do so to this day. Fish and amphibians, reptiles/birds existed way back then, even around the sametime... many kinds/varieties as they do to this day. Some may have become extinct, some haven't. Yet we are told one thing came from another. If they dig up anything, a part of something, that too will be fitted into their theory, even without knowing exactly what it was, how it lived, whether it's another species that may have become extinct, rather than a transitional form between fish and amphibian. E.g. they managed to mould an entire theory (ape-man) around the tooth of an extinct pig. We know this now, everybody knows, and that is only one example and you expect me to swallow anything that comes from your side regardless? Yet it's ok for you to question us and cry "evidence please"

Why is it that people who question this theory or start mentioning ideas of design are put in a very difficult position, possibly losing their job and somehow that's acceptable (or even denied it's occured)....yet, you want me to think that the evolutionists are all unbias, honest guys who just want to get the truth out to us? And then you guys become almost outraged at anybody daring to question their pet theories or asking for substantial evidence to back up these outrageous claims....

Did you read the interview with the evolution biologist? The one televised? This is another very concerning insight also as to what may well be going on behind the scenes. Certainly this guy said that he claimed evolution is responsible for all these things, regardless of what he was finding, as he did not want to lose his job, his position and his money....A sobering thought to anybody entering the science field.

Considering the fact that Paul aka Saul himself was a bible scholar long before he had a clue about salvation it would hardly be a far fetched notion.

Quite a number of bible scholars are even athiests. Maybe you'd like to share their understanding of salvation with us? oh, you are already doing that, sorry I mentioned it.

Hello Bex,

I don't think you understand my point yet.

The fact is that you have not seen it NOT take place either. Your pictures tell you squat. Take two brothers, one goes around the world while the other stays home. Can you tell from looking at the brother that stays home whether or not the other brother has gone around the world? Likewise pictures of cyanobacteria from 3.5 billion years ago, that look like the cyanobacteria around today does not mean that some descendants of those cyanobacteria went around the world while some stayed home.

No, I don't conclude it happened anyway, I demonstrated that you are unable to prove that it has not occurred. If you are unable to prove it did not occur then your pictures do not show anything other than part of the natural history of this planet, a natural history that is better explained by evolution than by any other theory.

The fact is that not one coelacanth species alive today is the same species as any of the hundreds of coelacanth species in the fossil record means that they are all de facto different from those fossils, that they are NOT the same, and your personal ability, or inability, to tell one from the other is irrelevant.

The degree of change is actually irrelevant to evolution.

Perhaps because you are only looking at the brother that stayed home. The brother that went around the world is related to Tiktaalik rosea, one of several intermediate fossils between fish and tetrapods. It is like no animal alive today. Likewise archaeopteryx is not like any animal alive today, and demonstrates several features common with dinosaurs and several features common with modern birds. It is these common features that demonstrate evolution occurs (another reason why common features between fossils and modern life do not contradict evoltuion btw).

It may surprise you, but all organisms are "fully formed" -- a term that is really a tautology, if you think about it: no organism is not "fully formed" as the organism it is. It cannot be otherwise.

And that is not the way evolution works. Organisms don't "morph" into some new organism. You need to rid yourself of false ideas before you can begin to understand what evolution really is, I'm afraid.

I'll be happy to discuss what you expect evolution to accomplish, but you are going to need to define things a little more than "sign of complexity" ... or "something becoming something else" ... preferably using some terminology that biologist use (forlorn hope) rather than terms used by people that don't understand evolution.

the pictures actually show evolution, just in a broader scale than you acknowledge: they amply demonstrate part of the natural history of life on earth. You have no pictures of feathers from the Devonian period, nor of fish from the pre-cambian time.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Of course, Saul had to be struck blind before he would believe.

Which surely did stop the bible scholar in his quest to persecute Christians.

Sometimes not seeing is believing I guess.

Is part of your plan telling people they don't understand your point, when you find that evolution continues to fail at giving substantial proof that it even happened?



The same old side step (You can't prove it "didn't" happen). I suggest you go around the world and find a good psychiatrist. The pictures are reality and you think they don't prove squat, yet your scenarios, charts and imaginary assumptions do. You'd be LAUGHED out of a courtroom. The courtroom of science demands substantial evidence, NOT imagined suppositions with bias interpretations and wishful thinking. To continue proposing this as a scientific probability, putting it across as a fact, is shameful indoctrination to any student in a science classroom.

It's very simple RAZD, all kinds are stable. Unless you know of a horse than jumps side ways and becomes a leopard, or a cat goes round the other side of the world out of sight and becomes a dog. You are relying fully on imagination and using senarios like this in an attempt to support the theory you have no substance for. If the fossils don't tell you want you want to see, then you'll imagine that the ones we haven't seen underwent the changes instead <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />. Carry on imagining or that we just don't understand the process properly and though we don't see change, the changes were signficant. You continue to repeat the same excuses.



You haven't demonstrated anything, other than imagination and wishful thinking. Nothing else. You're unable to consider anything other than evolution happened. The alternative is unthinkable to you. One minute you say "I don't conclude it happened anyway" the next minute you're saying that natural history is better explained by evolution than by any other theory.....I believe that this theory is simply a convenient way to oust any idea of a Creator. It certainly doesn't explain it any better! It's just man's idea of what MUST have happened because the alternative is not desirable or wanted.

As I have said, the evolutionist continues to have the burden of proof to prove that their theory is a reality, they're teaching it in the science classroom. Your way out of this is an attempt to shift that burden onto the opposition when you are faced with pictures that defy any significant changes that one would expect from millions of years worth of evolution. If they haven't shown change, you tell us they are signficantly changed anyway and that we just don't see it (or understand it). It also shows that fish and amphibians were existing then, just as they are now. Evolution teaches that one evolved into the other.....yet these pics show even then they were existing around the sametime. What's changed? Even natural history hasn't contradicted the present. The evolutionist is the only one trying to do that.



Are you now telling me that evolution doesn't preach that simplicity became complexity? If morphing from one kind into another over long periods of time doesn't occur, then how do you explain that dinosaurs became birds? Clearly they are totally different! How do you explain the fish - amphibian evolution? Especially in the light of total lack of proof it even occured. As far back as we can go, as far as the fossil evidence we do have, it hasn't shown anything of the sort. The only false ideas RAZD is evolution itself. The theory itself evolves depending on the situation the evolutionist finds himself in. Words a great part of that and telling people they just don't understand the process is another big part of it.



The pictures show no sign of evolution at all, except in the imagination of the evolutionist who wants to believe they still evolved anyway. Yep, they amply demonstrate natural history of life on earth, and continue to demonstrate it in much the same way, I totally agree...in other words what's really changed? Nothing more than assuming it must have.



So far we can only go by what we can observe today and what the fossils themselves may show us. And any that we cannot observe today that have become extinct, should not be automatically interpreted to fit in with evolution and then a chart given to show what happened. What we do know at least is that MANY different kinds were still existing millions of years ago then existing around the sametime as eachother...much the same as they do to this day. Outside of that, unless you have proof, it is very much imagination time.

Word games might help you to keep the argument going, but it's not helping your theory become anymore a reality than it's failed to be.

Demonstrating that in this respect, Darwinism is unfalsifiable.

And concluding (or claiming if you prefer) that it happened anyway, clear as day.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shiftyeyes.gif" alt="" />(and misplacing the burden of proof, in case anyone overlooked it.)

Of course there's always an inconsistency. Whenever a candidate missing link is found, they claim Darwinism predicted it. But when they can't be found, they claim it doesn't count as a failed prediction.

If ever a series of fossils was found changing from critter 1 to critter 2, they'd claim Darwinism predicted this. When stasis is found, they claim there's no failed prediction.

I'd rather buy snake oil.

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/bpizdrcbgc.jpg">

Let's put it this way, Bex . . . Your idea of evolution seems to be that it says organisms must change drastically. It appears to rule out the possibility that some organisms may undergo little change ("stay at home") while others undergo profound change ("travel around the world").

Can you show please:
-- Why you think that this has to be the case? and,
-- A case of any evolutionary scientist saying that this has to be the case?

If you are unable to show that evolution has to occur at the same rapid rate for all species, then you need to concede that it can occur at different rates dependent on different variables, one notable one being change (or lack thereof) of environment.

Let's look at the coelacanth -- which, as you have seen, has indeed undergone evolutionary change. It has, however, changed little in comparison with the majority of other organisms. Look at its environment. Deep sea. It's pretty well sheltered from drastic climatic changes in the world up above, meteor strikes, volcanoes changing the atmospheric conditions, etc. Keeping this in mind, it would be surprising if the coelacanth had evolved rapidly -- there are no conditions pushing it to do so.

As I said earlier as well, "living fossils" are rare. Almost every organism has undergone evolution to some extent, and the majority have become extinct in the past. This is again not a surprise. How do you think any of this is somehow a falsification for evolution?

In response to another point: Can you find an evolutionary scientist who says that when a new species evolves, the parent species must necessarily die out -- that the two cannot co-exist? This question has already been put to you. There is maybe some confusion here about what the ToE actually is. I'll let RAZD clarify, as he has already started several threads on this subject.

BTW I also suggest that before you cast doubt on dating techniques -- I gave you three earlier -- that you find something out about them. It would be akin to me saying, "The earth goes around the sun? I don't believe it. I see the sun rise in the east and set in the west every day and you scientists could never prove to me otherwise. I'm not listening to you and your wishful thinking."

One last point. You said:


The ToE is a well-tested theory for the evidence we see in the fossil record, in geology, in genetics. If someone offers a competing idea, why should they not be compelled to offer some proof for it, and show why it fits the facts better than the existing theory? This is the scientific method. Scientists don't accept new theories because they sound good, and they don't reject existing theories because they just don't like them. The evidence is always what needs to be weighed.

Speaking of evidence, that's what you need in order to show that creationism is a viable competing theory. It does not win by default if evolution were somehow proved wrong. We would not then turn around and say, "OK, that must mean that the world was created 6000 years ago by a supernatural being, and everything that ever existed was created at the same time, in the form in which it is found now." There is no less of a burden of proof to show that this is what actually happened. Quite a few things contradict this, such as the sorting of the fossil record and the dating of the rocks in which fossils are found, which is one reason why we're having this discussion.

hate to tell you, again, Linda, but if this is the best you can do to defend your arguments:


then your arguments have all failed. It's not any any better than your flat earth line. All you keep doing is comparing yourself to an idiot in order to say everyone else is an idiot. In essence, you only describe yourself quite well. Why you continually keep doing this I have no idea, but given today's technology and your insistence that it's easy enough for you to continue saying the earth goes around the sun or the earth is flat just reiterates the point that Bex and CTD are making... Evolution lacks evidence in a time when evidence for all other things is abundant. Comparing yourself to an idiot to make it work in your mind somehow says a lot. You should examine why you continually need to resort to those tactics as a defense for evolution.

You have thrown so much garbage, so many lies about Christian beliefs as a start, on the table in the process. You might also want to examine why you continually need to resort to those tactics.

You've been given plenty of evidence of God's existence and the many ways he works. What you choose to do with it is up to you. But continually saying the earth is flat or the earth revolves around the sun to try to deny what you cannot actually defend is useless and not worthy of discussion.

What part of my debate is such an insult to you that you must hurl insulting rhetoric in my direction?

It is obvious from your responses to Linda and myself that you are unable to understand analogy. Perhaps you need to look up the purpose of analogy so you can confirm what I am about to tell you. I am sure you won't believe me because you have already concluded that I am either a liar, stupid or deluded by Satan.

Be that as it may an analogy is used to provide an understandable familiar comparison as a means of explaining a more complex or unfamiliar relationship. It is typically kept very simple and extremely obvious. That characteristic is not meant to imply that the recipient of the analogy, nor the sender, is unintelligent.
No analogy is an exact explanation of the concept it chosen to represent. It is not supposed to be.

I find it surprising that you are not able to process analogies very well, seeing as Jesus used them in a great many cases to explain the workings of God, heaven and people. They're called parables.

Or is it that you do understand analogy but cannot control your desire to hurt others? Perhaps you need to work on some of your fruits of the Spirit.

Is the above description what you believe the theory of evolution states? So, unless you see a video of an individual horse turning into a leopard during its lifetime, evolution is not true. Which evolutionist told you that this is how it works? Sure wasn't me.
If you think the theory of evolution says that, then I can understand why you cannot accept it.
However, if you do think the theory of evolution says that, you would be incorrect.

What alternative is that?
You do realize that the majority of evolutionists, many of them evolution biologist scientists, are also believers in God. Just that fact, refutes your statement that they are trying to oust the idea of a Creator.

You are stating that minimal change, in some species, over "long" periods of time shows evolution could not occur. The theory of evolution doesn't state that at all. How can we agree with you that your pictures equate to a problem when it doesn't contradict the theory of evolution at all?
Just because one fish population from a particular species evolved into amphibian-like animals, doesn't mean that all the population of that fish species had to evolve.
There's the problem....we can't even debate you about this lack of change, because we can't see which part of the theory that it violates. This isn't shifting the burden of proof. It's asking you to provide a clear explanation of how this lack of change violates parts of the theory of evolution.

Then there is this little bit from above:
First, evolution teaches that amphibian populations are descendants of fish populations. It does not say that all fish populations evolved into amphibian populations.

Second, what do you mean by "around the same time"? Do you contend that the fossil record has amphibians showing up in the same layers as when the fish showed up? There are no older layers with only fish and not amphibians? Sorry, but you are incorrect, if that is what you are saying.

BTW: No one has told you that frogs changed significantly from then to now. What we have shown you is examples of change in process (Tiktaalik, archaeopteryx) and evidence that all kinds were not present at all times (fossil sorted by age of sediment layers) so some change must have occurred.

An explanation of my analogy about the "sun going round the earth," since one seems to be needed.

From common sense, individual observation, this appears to be the case. Presumably all of us accept here that the earth, however, actually orbits the sun. Yet, have any of us been up in outer space to verify that this is indeed the case? Or do we accept that this is how things work because it's what science and mathematics tell us? Why are there no accusations that there is a grand conspiracy of scientists who don't want us to accept that the sun orbits the earth?

The absurdity of this suggestion is meant to throw some light on similar claims being made here for another scientific theory. I could illustrate others. This very ceolacanth that's been discussed, for example. I accept that it exists because I've seen pictures of it and read about it. I've never actually seen one myself. If, for some reason, my agenda included denying the existence of the coelacanth, I could claim that its fossils are all fakes, that scientists and the textbooks are full of lies, and that no one could ever convince me that it actually existed unless they showed it to me (a situation which I would of course avoid).

Accepting that the earth orbits the sun is not wishful thinking, it's highly plausible to the point of being certain. Accepting that a fish called a coelacanth exists is not wishful thinking, it's highly plausible to the point of being certain. Accepting that evolution happens is not wishful thinking . . . etc etc.

Exactly what part of your debate is true? The part about bible scholars understanding salvation? Get a life. An enormous amount of bible scholarship today tries to prove the bible erroneous or problematic. if you don't care for my response, hurt feeling and tears will not relieve your pain, which btw you earned. Just correcting ya there, sailor.

as for the rest... follow your own advice please.

Exactly what part of your debate is true? The part about bible scholars understanding salvation? Get a life. An enormous amount of bible scholarship today tries to prove the bible erroneous or problematic. if you don't care for my response, hurt feeling and tears will not relieve your pain, which btw you earned. Just correcting ya there, sailor.

as for the rest... follow your own advice please.

I said sorry in advance anyway. It's evident you love to toss garbage around. But I can't figure out why you think it's offensive when people clean your garbage up. trash is trash, quit being a litterbug. It's a lot of work being the garbage collector you know. You know... if you are not big enough to at least say thank you for the corrections, you might consider paying us for the task at least. there's always so much to do.

????
I wasn't trying to say that all bible scholars understand salvation, when clearly they don't. I was saying that if a person claims to be a bible scholar but doesn't know the mechanics of salvation as laid out by Paul in Romans chapter 8, then it's obvious they really are not bible scholars. Remember...analogy.

What garbage of mine were you cleaning up? If you had been more specific then maybe I would feel the urge to thank you. When did Russ assign the garbage collection job to you?

Besides, the way you put "sorry" into your post, it looked like a sarcastic comment rather than an apology.

Cute, Bex.

The subtitle is "God did it" ... as this is how creationism works.

Enjoy.

Hello Bex, congratulations

.What you have proven is that "Bexolution" is a false concept.

Unfortunately for you the real world is not in any way inhibited by your understanding of reality, particularly with what is involved in evolution. Let me know when you really want to talk about evolution instead of fantasies.

Yet this is not how any science works. Not one single theory in all of science is ever proven. All we can do is disprove them, and this means that the burden of proof is squarely on the skeptics.

They aren't. They are studied in great detail, noting all the differences as well as similarities -- including those differences that allow them to say that modern coelacanths are not the same as the fossil ones -- and then they argue about and test different relationships until they come to the best understanding possible.

Your task, should you disagree, is to provide an alternative explanation that also explains all the evidence we have. As noted, your concept of sudden Bexolution does not do that.

People who do not want to know about the rest of the world only talk to the brother that stayed in one place.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

So all fantasies are true until proven false? This thread just gets funnier & funnier!

I guess my trekkie friends can expect Picard & Worf to come back from the 24th century & beam them up at any time. I hope Data comes along too. He's pretty funny, and it's not sad funny like this thread.

Then again, I suppose we might be hearing from <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yoda.gif" alt="" /> & <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/swwarrior.gif" alt="" /> & <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/swdarklightening.gif" alt="" />.

gosh I forget already. and Russ didn't. I <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/censored.gif" alt="" />-igned myself. Remember, analogy.



oh, sorry.

I think it's pretty evident he makes this stuff up as he goes along.

I concur with Bex about him needing a psychiatrist.

bonafied nutjob with a few screws missing.

Long before you appeared CTD he was trying to teach us that 1+1 only equals 2 when you can find 2 absolutely perfectly identical things.

Glad he doesn't share my bank account or he'd probably fret all day and burn the dirty dollars.

Actually Linear, here is the quote in it's entirety, where you equate being a bible scholar with a requirement for having a full comprehensive knowledge of salvation, when in fact, in the real world, no such requirement exists. Just like no such requirement exists for truthfulness within academia concerning evolutionary theory, and as a result truthfulness is often scoffed at. Paul aka Saul was not deluding himself concerning his bible knowledge prior to having an encounter with Christ, quite the opposite by most historical accounts. He was quite well versed in Jewish scripture. And If he didn't truly believe, I doubt that Jesus would have bothered with him at all. He understood things perfectly from a Jewish perspective which simply does not include Jesus as the messiah.

People don't manage and stock well known museums all by themselves you know. If the items existed past charts and drawings and rhetoric they would be on display. kind of a no brainer there. Evolution exists purely as an illusion of charts and drawings and rhetoric. And it ain't never healed anyone of anything or even proven itself reliable as a scientific method either. It's dead I'd say.

I liked the snake with legs though. Too bad bones can't talk. Seems like most of the snakes I run into have devolved from the upwardly mobile trend there. Maybe someday people will devolve and lose their legs too huh? and somehow continue to convince themselves that that is progress...

gosh. come to think of it, if people lost their arms and their legs. wow, that would really be progress.

It would prove they were useless to begin with and we are better off without them! Evolved to a perfect armchair boobtube position!!

wow, science is really cool.. when did it lose it's brain?

My idea of evolution is that it never occured at all. Why quibble over a fantasy and "how" this fantasy supposedly took place? This is an example of the way evolution indoctrinates and I've said this before. They have you believing it happened, but quibble about the process of it (which doesn't allow for challenging evolution itself). This is the way they work . Someone gave this example of it "How long have you been beating your wife" (it doesn't ask "IF" the beating happened in the first place). Evolution works by that principle. It does not allow the students to question it happened in the first place and what you're seeing on this forum is the results of total indoctrination. They cannot think outside the box. They have an agenda that forces them to ignore anything that contradicts their theory and play word games as a way of escaping that.

Does your theory not teach that simplicity became complexity over millions/billions of years? And if so, in order for single celled organisms to become what we observe today, profound changes would need to have taken place. Even if they occured slowly over that time. If you are admitting to the possibility of little to no change in life...this then indicates order/formation from the start. If this is not so, then what else is there for you? The fossils certainly do not support any idea of simple becoming complex and have remained much the same....so why do you assume it still happened, inside or outside of them? How can you the imply that organisms do not have to change drastically...in light of what your belief in our origins are? How can you get from one thing (single celled organisms) to the ordered and complexity in life we observe today and say "it didn't have to change drastically"? That makes no sense Linda.

If we are to believe your theory from the beginning (our origins) it absolutely requires drastic change in order to support it and in millions of years, we should have seen some indication of that and we do not. Otherwise you're left with the idea that all or "some" creatures were always much the same...which is almost an unconscious admission. What does your theory stand upon?

You are expecting us to believe that the universe and life itself could actually arise and organise itself in such a way as to produce and support itself and all life that arose upon it. In all it's order. Which is really asking people to have great faith isn't it? Faith in fantasy. On one hand we're told it all came from single celled organisms, yet on the next hand, when no sign of simplicity in life becoming complexity occurs (neither now or in the fossils) we're told that they do not need to change drastically for evolution to have occured. In fact, I think Linda wants us to believe that the fossils caught on camera were the ones that stayed at home, and the ones not caught are the ones who must have wondered around the world. I think this is a good example of the evolutionist worming his/her way out of every conceivable situation.



You are unable to prove it happened at all <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Whether rapid or not. So beyond that, you don't have a lot leftover.



Yes let's do look at the Coelacanth!
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/lehhkwqaws.jpg">
Ancient Coelacanth above, modern day Coelacanth below. Just remember folks, though it looks the same, or much the same. It still evolved ok? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Your imagined ideas of evolution are yours to keep, please don't imagine we're fooled along with you. I have not seen any signs of evolution if this is your idea of an example of it, then evolution is desperate! You would need to show it evolved in the first place, let alone evolved a little, which you have failed to do. There are many varieties of fish and varieties within fish as well. So you still haven't proven a thing other than trying to sell evolution to others in defiance of little to no change. If even the environment hasnt' stirred it into evolving, what makes you think it did at all? and if it did change, but didn't require drastic changes.... what did it arise from? :-)

Your proposal here to teach me evolution falls flat again Linda. Whether co-existing, or not, you have no evidence any of them are products of evolution in the first place or any of them evolved from the other. You ask me to falsify it? Can anybody really falsify someone's fantasy? I can come up with any story I want and defy you to prove it didn't happen.



If it was a well-tested and proven theory, they would not need to continue to rely on assumptions and tell us it happened in the failure of any substantial evidence. They've had millions of years to come up with something from the fossils, yet instead they quibble over something like a fish showing little to no change, or jump on a piece of fossil limb and start making an entire story around that as well. It's pitiful!

The competing idea, which you are well aware of, is intelligent design (intentional design, without the requirement for evolution). The belief that none of these creatures (us included) has undergone any such proposed evolution beginning from single celled organisms. All things have shown to be fully formed, then and now (as far as one can observe, which is part of science). They all reproduce after their own kind and as far as we can record and observe, they always have. You need to prove that it's been a different senario and until you can do that, your theory is fantasy and nothing more. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If all things show completeness and order, then it's highly likely they always have. It is YOUR theory that proposes a different senario, yet fails to give any proof to support it. Why do I need to prove what nature is and has already proven Linda? The bible has already stated what we observe around us and as far as we've been able to tell, always has. All things were created to reproduce after their own kind. They were created and designed just as they were.

Fact of the matter is, what faith you decide to take onboard is what it comes down to. Because without scientific proof for your theory, which you do not have Linda, all you have is assumptions. Even evolutionists argue. How can you prove what took place in the beginning if you were not there to see what happened? The bible explains it, the first two human beings were testaments to it, it was passed down... but as time wore on, people deviated from their origins and truth. There is no way for me to prove the beginnings outside of that because I was not one of those witnesses! Neither were you. We have their word, but we have the choice to disregard that and evolution can be the alternative if someone wants to find some other way to try and explain how all things ultimately arose..... If not evolution, one may have to consider the idea that all this may have arose out of purpose! That for many people is unthinkable, because it indicates an ultimate intelligence beyond all of this, which points to a God. Either this all came from chance happenings, or it came from purpose. Take your pick. What else is there Linda?

Congratulations RAZD, you have provided, once again, no substance <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I'll return the compliment with a touch of entertainment attached.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl8SRrlbbN0



Unfortunately for you, the real world fails to provide you with the substantial proof you require to back your claims. Words and charts and assumptions with bias don't count. The real world does. Thank God for photography! And thank God for the fossils. Let me know if you want to talk about the real world instead of assumed fantasies!



They allow themselves to make such statements based on evolutionary assumptions. You've already assumed evolution occured, just as they have, now they must fit whatever they find into that belief system. Let me know these great differences in case I missed them. I hope it's not a case of the differences you find in everything (e.g. someone with bigger ears than someone else, or a bigger nose, or anything like that). I mean make sure you prove that this creature had actually evolved and make sure it's not just another variety ok? Because the bible already describes variety and all things producing after their own kind, so let me know how Bexolution contradicts what we see and always have seen.



Your task, should you be capable, is to provide the evidence in the first place.

Amusing RAZD "Bexolution"....If you can believe that all things arose out of chance, and have such faith in that....then it would actually require you less faith to believe that it is highly conceivable that they arose out of purpose, given that life itself most definitely has purpose, form and order. If you can show me how form and order comes from chance and disorder? Let me know. Until you can prove that all the things we observe today and have always been able to observe, were once a product of chance - simple celled organisms, you have failed your own test.

Hello Bex,

Well it is clear that you are not talking about the same thing that evolutionary biologists talk about when they use the word "evolution" -- so you must be talking about something else. Either a strawman of your own making or one you have adopted without skepticism from questionable sources. It is one of the common failings of creationists -- they think they know what it means, but what they learned came from false sources and not from the science itself. Using terms with different meanings in the same argument is called equivocation, and it is one of the reasons I dislike using the term "evolution" -- you have to wade throught the muck of mythology that creationists have made. Monkey to man, goo to you, rock to human, these all are false strawmen representations that have nothing to do with real evolution, and they are devoid of any real meaning in science. Science uses terms for certain purposes, and (curiously) people outside that science don't get to redefine them, they just show ignorance of the scientific usage when they apply other meanings or tack things on that aren't included in the scientific terminology.

And I am sure that Dr Latimer would be happy to tell you about the significant differences between this fish and the fossil one. The fact that you can not see them does not make them magically disappear.

Yet whenever we do the creationists run away. The evidence is the world around you. You just need to look closely, with an open mind, and plenty of skepticism of all ideas (including religious ones).

When you are willing to approach this subject with an open mind let me know and we can explore the world of evidence. There are a couple of threads I have started on this aspect, "Evolution Explains Diversity"[/i] is one and [i]"Evolution and the BIG LIE"[/i] is another. Perhaps we can call it [i]RAZDolution while we work on it, just to keep you from being confused by creationist falsehoods. The meanings behind the words are more important than the words themselves, after all, and what we are really arguing about is the meaning, yes?

Enjoy.

ps - evolution is not a religion because it is willing to be wrong. That makes it fundamentally different from belief in something infallible.

[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

It's impossible to learn evolutionism from science itself. One could spend many lifetimes searching in vain, but how does one find what isn't there?

Sure is! Generally evolutionists are hoping nobody's hep to their bogus practice, but in this case I thing you're going for raw shock power. It is rather brazen of you to bring it up, but then again, I can understand... better to distract attention from the total lack of evidence, right?

Why would one expect something that isn't visible to disappear? Magic shouldn't even be required. Don't think many folks would pay to see an act like that: See folks, nothing in my hat! Now presto! See, I made the nothing disappear.

I know I'd be asking for my money back.
Oh, so it's in the interest of maintaining dialogue that evolutionists fail to present evidence? Whoever told you evidence'd chase away creationists was either lying or repeating something they hadn't verified. The implication that they actually had such evidence should have been a tip-off.

Just what do you think all these requests for evidence in this thread indicate, hmmmm?

It may be what you'd prefer to argue about; and why not? It saves you the embarrassment of failing time & again to produce evidence.

In the interest of moving the discussion along to something you prefer, how about if you all just admit there's no actual evidence? Then we can read some more of your equivocations. Fair enough?

Living Fossils: There Are None by Glen Morton.

Some passages of note:


and


Note the references to the scientific literature about this organism. Why are people here claiming that modern coelacanths are identical to fossil ones, without seemingly looking into the reasons why modern ones are classified differently? And why, still, this insistance that an organism must change drastically in order for evolution to be legitimate? I think we need to move this discussion to one fo RAZD's threads and discuss what evolution actually is.

So a bigger coelacanth is a different kind? Does this mean bigger catfish are also different? Let's start with hype & work our way truthward, just for fun.

Hype link 1
Hype link 2
Hypemonger having doubts

Evidence link 1
Evidence link 2
Revenge of the naysayers (the location's wrong)
Evidence link 3
Evidence Grande

Mainstream
More Mainstream
Et tu, Atheist Rag? Then fall evohype!

Ah, the ever predictable elitists, always <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/gunshot.gif" alt="" /> when it comes to common knowledge. These stories have been around for decades, but it's easier to <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tauntyou.gif" alt="" /> than to investigate.

Hello Linda,

But they don't want to know the truth. They would rather ignore the real evidence, as CTD does when he focuses on the difference in size and completely ignores the difference in lung scales. It's called cognitive dissonance.

Enjoy.

Yes. The coelacanth has undergone change to an extent. So have other "living fossils."

What's more, in regards to what creationists here claim about there being "no evidence," I have asked before what we should logically make of fossils such as those of the whale or the horse, which are well documented in the fossil record. Why would God make one kind of horse, found only in one deeper stratum; then a slightly different kind of horse, found only in a stratum above that; then a slightly different horse, found in a stratum above . . . etc etc. And then he does this for the whale, and many others. No one here has offered an alternative explanation for this.

Nor have they explained how dating methods must, according to their beliefs, be wrong.

In other areas, they have been unable to explain how correlating dates between varves, ice cores and tree rings must, according to their beliefs, be wrong.

They have been unable to explain the lack of a genetic bottleneck in species 6,000 years ago, when a global flood, according to their beliefs, wiped out all but two of every "kind" of living thing.

They have been unable to explain, according to their beliefs, how some hominid fossils are 100% monkey while others are 100% human, and where the line is drawn between the two.

They have been unable to explain why the fossil record shows nothing but very simple organisms at deep levels; why vertebrates such as dinosaurs are found above them the world over, and why hominds are near the top -- no mixing.

There are other things we could go into more detail about, such as more of the evidence that disproves a global flood.

It seems to me that we need to see the facts for what they are and fashion our belief systems accordingly. Plenty of people seem to be able to fit religious beliefs with acceptance of the evidence above.

I'm not ignoring this claim - I just can't verify anything about it. I don't have the book, I don't find any references to scales in lungs beyond this source. They sound fairly antifunctional, and I'd expect them to cause quite a hub-bub if they could be substantiated. Obtaining a contemporary fish to study shouldn't be out of the question, but obtaining soft tissue from the old fossils is mighty iffy.

Until we have details on the claim, what's to discuss?

I did find this during my search:

But the bulk of Glen Morton's argument was about size, and this is just the kind of bogus argument one expects. Catfish aren't the only fish to come in many sizes; it's very commonly the case with fishes. Yet we see the mainstream attempting to downplay & suppress this fact because they need to sell size as a product of evolution.

Will what I actually posted be ignored? Is anyone going to concede that Glen Morton is incorrect, or offer counter-arguments in favor of his assertions? Is there a single creationist present who doesn't already have a good idea what to expect?

Hello CTD,

Size is one of the many features that are different, and the issue is that it is not the sole criteria. Size is important when the specimen is outside the normal range for a species. Yes catfish -- another general category and not a specific species -- come in a variety of sizes when mature, but when you look at individual species the variation is less than in the group as a whole. The modern coelacanth is (I believe) larger than all the ancient species:

That's at least 3x's the size of virtually all the ancient coelacanths for the smallest modern adults. That would be like finding an 18 ft human skeleton, or going the other way one 2 ft tall (much smaller than Homo floriensis. Or say, the difference between eohippus and the modern horse. So, yes, when the difference is of this magnetude it is a significant aspect of that species adaptation to it's environment, ... the result of evolution (the real kind). With that kind of size difference it is a difference that is hard to ignore.

As for the rest of your argument, I'll ignore it because it is really irrelevant. Evolution does not happen to every branch of every species, thus having "living fossils" does not contradict evolution: rather it is just more evidence that evolution is not a directed process but one of reaction and opportunity. Dawkins likened it to a drunkards walk, staggering along a path, and no clear goal.

I know what I expect from creationists: failure to deal with the reality that evolution has occurred no matter what you think these pictures and special instances mean. I've suggested two other threads that can be used as well as this one to go over those details. No takers?

You could try contacting the people at http://www.dinofish.com/ the email address is [email]dinofish@cloud9.net.[/email] While you are at it, ask how many other differences there are ...

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]