Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Early Cretaceous (150 million to 100 million years old) specimens.....with "flesh"

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
You said "no evolution at all", not "no major evolution".


I don't consider adaptive changes within a species to be the same thing, at all, as claimed changes into a new species. Hence, no proof of "evolution". If you want to be more technical, we can discuss micro vs. macro.


originally posted by: Barcs
You claimed many creatures showed this but didn't give an example.


Yes, I did. Go back and re-read.


originally posted by: Barcs
Major evolution isn't even a term. Evolution always is minor and always occurs on the genetic level by definition.


They don't have genetic evidence for a lot of fossilized remains. By definition, claiming fossils are proof, then claiming genetics are the key, is arguing against yourself. You don't get DNA from rocks, which is what the vast majority of the remains are now. *shakes head, sighs*


originally posted by: Barcs
You are defining what is considered proof and I don't think you are qualified to determine that.


You can think whatever you like in that regard. Doesn't change the facts.


originally posted by: Barcs
Obviously a slight increase in height over thousands of years isn't considered a new species. New species aren't just born overnight. It takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years of those small changes to add up for complex creatures before they are considered a new species.


Sure it does. Of course it does. That way, you can conveniently ignore the fact that science requires you to be able to observe a thing, as part of the proof. That is THE reason that the claimed age of everything is so vast, to avoid having to actually use a proper scientific method to prove this failed theory. Plus, no such new species has been proven to have developed from any other. No transitional forms. None. Claims that similar creatures are "transitional" doesn't make them so, and there are none showing all those "small changes" in between any of those. Not a single such case has ever been shown. Mutation is the ONLY way you could conceivably connect any of those, and mutation doesn't happen like that. The mutations would have to be beneficial to be passed on, and most mutations are not beneficial. Hence, the whole theory falls apart.


originally posted by: Barcs
You don't have have 1 species one day and another the next. And it's not just increased height. It's little things like fingernails instead of claws, opposable thumbs, less body hair, greater intellect, bipedalism, ability to use tools and plan ahead, etc etc that define humans from their ancestors just a few million years ago. You don't seem to understand that big changes are brought about by lots of little changes over longer time periods.


Yet, again, no evidence of this. No forms that show any gradual change; only forms that show big changes. You don't seem to understand that, in millions of years, the forms showing the very minute changes would be fossilized as well, yet we have none. No matter how much farther back the "beginning" is pushed, there will never be enough time for evolution to happen as claimed.


originally posted by: Barcs
The age of the earth was never an exact figure. It was always "at least xxxx years". Even today there is still a margin of error. As scientists learned more the number got bigger and more precise and haven't changed in something like 70 years. You are suggesting they just made up the figures for age of the earth to appease evolutionary theory and scientists are all involved in some mega conspiracy to suppress religion.


Right; built in "wiggle room" in case the claims didn't pan out, so they could claim it "takes more time". Again, very convenient for ignoring that rule about observing a thing to prove it. The scientific method requires observation, then a hypothesis, then testing, and preferably duplication. Evolution cannot be observed, or tested, or duplicated. This is basic science.


originally posted by: Barcs
So your vast research was all reading a single national geographic article and proclaiming it wrong? LMAO! Way to go into detail! I posted the evidence but you keep ignoring it. Can you PLEASE address the science, instead of pretending it wasn't posted and STILL arguing that there is no evidence. That notion is laughably absurd and ignoring evidence is dishonest.


Don't be obtuse. I said that was a key point, not that it was the sum total of all my research. Statements like that make you look desperate, frankly. Resorting to ad hominem attacks are the sign of one losing the debate. Tsk, tsk. When you can grow up, perhaps we can debate more. You were doing well for a while, there. Now you slipped in a puddle of "primordial soup".


originally posted by: Barcs
Why should I offer proof when you haven't offer a shred of evidence against evolution or for an alternative theory?


Offer it, or admit you are full of crap. You made a very serious statement, and you can't offer proof? The list of ALL scientists, and their positions, or admit you pulled that figure out of a hat, or someplace.

As usual, the evolution supporter slips into the mud, cackles to himself, and refuses to address the facts, or offer proof of claims.




posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Just as I figured; you ignore anything and everything that shows flaws in your chosen theory... But, hey, don't let the facts bother you.

In order for a cult to succeed, one MUST ignore all facts and reality.

Darwinism is nothing less than a MASSIVE form of mind control masquerading as knowledge.

*snip*


Indeed. All good quotes, as well. No idea why, but I didn't get a notification for this post. Glad I skimmed the page!

The way the evolution supporters debate, it's crystal clear it's a religious matter for them. NO ONE gets that bent out of shape over a scientific debate!



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Here's the kicker.....



The skeletons were extremely well preserved some even retained soft tissues



How does soft tissue survive 100 - 150 million years on a fossilized skeleton?
Fossilized means the original material is mineral saturated and hardened.

Ancient 'fish lizard' graveyard discovered beneath melting glacier

If there is soft tissue then the mineral saturation over eons was halted abruptly, when there was still flesh. This implies abrupt burial in the mud and sudden deep freezing.

How do creationists and evolutionists view such data, and which will be more likely to attempt to dismiss this data?


Just like the T-Rex fossil find a few years ago where the scientist was able to expose soft tissue after exposing the cut marrow contents to acid and discovering soft tissue/connective tissue present.
I have to look for it, but if my memory serves me well, the tissue within the T-Rex bone was preserved because of the large presence of iron in the surrounding strata. This in turn reacted with the DNA and protected it from degrading. Even after millions of years! Amazing stuff.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

This isn't a debate, and it never was. It has been me explaining things to you, and you flat out denying them while ranting. You don't win debates by denial of the opponent's points. You prove your side with evidence. I have offered several links, one with 29+ facts of evolution that prove common decent. I have posted direct OBSERVED proof of speciation, and showed how exactly DNA plays a role in evolution and helps prove it. Obviously, you read none of it and denied it all without offering a piece of legitimate evidence against anything I posted. I posted several links that show slow gradual change is exactly how evolution works. Your best argument is that we don't have all DNA from all fossils, which is laughable at best. You failed to explain retroviruses or account for vaccines and treatments that have to account for evolution of the bacteria. You failed to describe an alternate theory backed by evidence. You failed to show which parts of the science I posted are wrong and why. Even your key point is nonsensical and irrelevant because you didn't explain it. You just said you didn't see evidence, which is absurd considering everything I have posted.


I don't consider

I don't care what you don't consider. You are not the be all end all of logic. You do not know more than scientists. Your considerations about what counts as evidence and what does not are unsubstantiated.


Yes, I did. Go back and re-read.

I read it and you're wrong. You cited one with small changes, not "no evolution at all" as you originally claimed. Now go back and read my evidence links.


By definition, claiming fossils are proof, then claiming genetics are the key, is arguing against yourself

By definition, both genetics AND fossils are proof of evolution. What a terrible point, they are separate pieces of evidence (now entire fields of science) that point to the same thing.


That way, you can conveniently ignore the fact that science requires you to be able to observe a thing, as part of the proof.

Re-read the speciation link

And since I'm feeling generous.

List of transistion fossils you claim don't exist


This is basic science.

Right on. It is. Now actually READ the links that reference this basic science. You're supposed to deny ignorance, not perpetuate it.


Offer it, or admit you are full of crap. You made a very serious statement, and you can't offer proof? The list of ALL scientists, and their positions, or admit you pulled that figure out of a hat, or someplace.


You seriously ignored my entire 2nd post? LMAO. That's all I needed to know. I gave you a direct link about that exact study. If evolution was really as weak as you claim it is, scientists would be actively debating it and trying to figure out what really happened. But again, you have no evidence of any other theory. Just because you don't think it happened that way and can't comprehend evolution does not make it wrong, I'm sorry. Put your ego aside and read the science I posted. When you have done so and have a rational thought out rebuttal to make that isn't a rant or flat out denial then post it. I'll be waiting. I'm not going to continue to go back and forth about nothing. My points stand until you can prove otherwise.


The way the evolution supporters debate, it's crystal clear it's a religious matter for them. NO ONE gets that bent out of shape over a scientific debate!


Nobody's getting bent out of shape. You are the one who is denying every link I have posted and won't provide evidence to the contrary. It's not a scientific debate, it's a one sided affair. Evolution supporters debate with facts. Evolution deniers... well they just deny. It's kind of humorous, actually.
edit on 27-6-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

This isn't a debate, and it never was. It has been me explaining things to you, and you flat out denying them while ranting.


Stuff and nonsense. It's a debate because we hold opposing points of view, neither one of which is proven. Your refusal to accept that fact doesn't change it. For ranting, look in the mirror. I am simply stating what I believe, and various facts that support what I believe. If that's too much for you to handle, by all means, feel free to simply stop responding.


originally posted by: Barcs
You don't win debates by denial of the opponent's points. You prove your side with evidence.


I have posted evidence, and you have denied it. Thus, you haven't won the debate. Once again, and listen carefully - speciation is NOT evolution. Until you can figure that out, there is no point in bothering to take this further.


originally posted by: Barcs
I have offered several links, one with 29+ facts of evolution that prove common decent. I have posted direct OBSERVED proof of speciation, and showed how exactly DNA plays a role in evolution and helps prove it.


No, you posted links that make the same old tired assumptions. Speciation doesn't prove evolution. Period. You don't get DNA from fossilized remains, either. It's ROCK. There are no transitional forms. Claiming "all fossils are transitional forms" simply makes people look foolish. Show the forms that are 97% this and 3% that, or 85% this and 15% that. Oh, wait, that's right; there are NONE. None.

According to Darwin,

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

We have such evidence. According to Michael Denton, a molecular biologist,

"Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."
Seems pretty complex to me! Darwin even said, concerning the eye,

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
When even the guy who first expressed the theory knows it's "absurd", and we know a lot more today than he did back then, and how complex are other parts of our bodies, such as the heart, or the ears, or blood composition, then it is clear that his theory doesn't hold water. Real science proves this. Assuming mutations that would account for the working of the eye alone, that would have to occur all at once, is beyond reasonable. Mathematically, it's virtually impossible, the odds are so small. We have many such systems. Instead of blindly following old data, do some actual research, and learn. There is NO WAY all the complex systems of our bodies alone formed randomly over time, from some single-celled creature millions of years ago. it simply isn't feasible.


originally posted by: Barcs
Obviously, you read none of it and denied it all without offering a piece of legitimate evidence against anything I posted.


There you go again, assuming that disagreement means I "didn't read it".


originally posted by: Barcs
I posted several links that show slow gradual change is exactly how evolution works.


No, you posted links claiming that is what happens, when that isn't observable, or provable, or testable. Small changes within a specific type of animal do not prove, and never will prove, changes to an entirely different type of animal, no matter how much time is assumed to have passed. That isn't science; it's faith. Everything you claim is based on guesswork, on assumptions, and the guesses don't hold up to real scientific scrutiny. Irreducibly complex systems don't "evolve"; that isn't feasible. Animals that "evolve" don't appear in the fossil record from "nowhere", with no "ancestors". If animals evolved, then all would, and we wouldn't have so many that are virtually unchanged.

The denial is from your side of the fence.

No matter how many links to pro-evolution sites you post, the data presented won't change, and it won't be proof any more than it was yesterday, or last month, or last year. Lists of "transitional forms" from wikipedia? Sorry, no. Bad source, and worse data. The same old tired unproven lists. Nothing anywhere to prove the forms lined up are part of any genetic line of descent. No partially-this and partially-that forms. Just the same old false data.

I prefer to actually learn, and trust facts, instead of claiming that someone else's old unproven guesses are true, simply because too many refuse to let go of their saith in time and chance.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
I have posted evidence, and you have denied it. Thus, you haven't won the debate. Once again, and listen carefully - speciation is NOT evolution. Until you can figure that out, there is no point in bothering to take this further.

Um, what evidence have you posted? I haven't seen you back up anything you have said, while I have posted links to legimate science. Speciation is not evolution? LOL. What is it then? Is it not genetic mutations sorted by natural selection???? When a new species emerges due to those factors, it most definitely is evolution. But it's like I said, you just keep denying without backing anything up. Show me a single scientific article that claims speciation is not evolution. That's hilarious.


No, you posted links that make the same old tired assumptions.
Speciation doesn't prove evolution. Period. You don't get DNA from fossilized remains, either. It's ROCK. There are no transitional forms. Claiming "all fossils are transitional forms" simply makes people look foolish. Show the forms that are 97% this and 3% that, or 85% this and 15% that. Oh, wait, that's right; there are NONE. None.


I posted the entire list of known transitional fossils! You pretended that it didn't happen, AGAIN! And making claims about % means nothing because that's not how evolution works. The common ancestor of man and chimp isn't half man half chimp. You really don't even understand the basics, do you?

Quoting Darwin is a red herring, his knowledge is outdated and you cannot prove ANYTHING to be irreducibly complex. You didn't even put a link to the creationist site you found that nonsense on. Denton is one of the guys that runs Discovery institute and they have been caught lying and posting fraudulent assumptions and conclusions on their website. He's a creationist and uses key buzz words like, "intricate molecular machinery" and "micro-miniaturized factory". Get real. He's using metaphors to argue for intelligent design. He's a joke. He's basically appealing to the complexity to think it couldn't possibly emerge on its own, but he cannot prove it and never has. He argues based on what we DON'T know about DNA, rather than what we do know.


Real science proves this. Assuming mutations that would account for the working of the eye alone, that would have to occur all at once, is beyond reasonable. Mathematically, it's virtually impossible, the odds are so small. We have many such systems. Instead of blindly following old data, do some actual research, and learn. There is NO WAY all the complex systems of our bodies alone formed randomly over time, from some single-celled creature millions of years ago. it simply isn't feasible.

So post the real science that you are referring to. You are wrong, once again. Funny, you won't dare post a link to that because you know there is NOTHING to back that up other than unsubstantiated creationist claims.

notaccidental.notaccidentalcom.netdna-cdn.com...

Why assume the eye had to all form at once? This picture shows exactly how it could have formed. Therefor it IS NOT impossible as you claim. The odds are not small. Mathematically there is plenty of time for evolution.

www.rpgroup.caltech.edu...

I'll just go ahead an post this scientific study that shows the mathematical breakdown of the generations required for eye evolution. And they base it all on the longest possible time frames, hence why it says "a pessimistic estimate". In reality it's probably quicker, but this peer reviewed paper certainly shows there is enough time and that is it definitely possible. You just can't comprehend it and therefor dismiss it.

So, that's like 7-8 science links I've posted and rising. You haven't posted a single one that counters evolution. Are you going to argue against them or not? You still have not addressed a single one of them. You just keep pretending they weren't posted and denying them. Please prove something in regards to your side. Anything! Thanks.


There you go again, assuming that disagreement means I "didn't read it".

No, I'm assuming that your failure to understand them or even to address them means you didn't read it. If you read it, then lets hear your rebuttle instead of just denying it and claiming it's wrong with nothing to back that up.


No, you posted links claiming that is what happens, when that isn't observable, or provable, or testable.

This is why I say you didn't read the links, because they provide specific examples of this. Your denial does not prove them wrong. You need something tangible to argue against them, just saying that they are wrong isn't going to cut it.


Small changes within a specific type of animal do not prove, and never will prove, changes to an entirely different type of animal, no matter how much time is assumed to have passed.

Surely you can back this statement up. Why can't small changes add up over millions of years? You haven't explained it yet. What prevents this from happening? Your opinion is irrelevant, lets have the facts. Show me the math. Show me SOMETHING.


Everything you claim is based on guesswork, on assumptions, and the guesses don't hold up to real scientific scrutiny.

Wow. What an absolute lie. I have backed everything up with peer reviewed scrutinized scientific studies. You have not. Sorry, but it's your view of the world that doesn't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever. It's funny, because you are not a scientists and don't even know the basics of evolution, yet you KNOW it's wrong.


Animals that "evolve" don't appear in the fossil record from "nowhere", with no "ancestors". If animals evolved, then all would, and we wouldn't have so many that are virtually unchanged.

What on earth are you rambling about now? You still don't even know what natural selection is? Your argument is completely illogical and unsubstantiated. You need to read the links again. They explain most of your misunderstandings.


No matter how many links to pro-evolution sites you post, the data presented won't change, and it won't be proof any more than it was yesterday, or last month, or last year. Lists of "transitional forms" from wikipedia? Sorry, no. Bad source, and worse data. The same old tired unproven lists. Nothing anywhere to prove the forms lined up are part of any genetic line of descent. No partially-this and partially-that forms. Just the same old false data.


The wiki link is based on real fossils and has links to all of them at the bottom. Once again, your only argument is denial. What about Tiktaalik? Where is your data that conflicts with mine? Oh right, you don't have any data, you are just posting your beliefs, right? LMAO. Try harder. Back up your points, stop dishonestly denying mine while you provide nothing. There's no such thing as a one way debate.
edit on 28-6-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

If you would like to see side by side comparison for lucy this is a very nice interactive comparison of lucy, modern human, and chimp.

elucy.org...

I had never seen it before it's actually pretty interesting to see how similar the bones are close up.
From your BBC link

Lucy's stiff wrists suggest that her ancestors - and ours - walked on their knuckles. "We have found evidence in the wrist joint that sheds new light on arguably the most fundamental adaptation in humans ... which is why did humans start walking upright?" Dr Richmond said. Flexible wrists "Walking upright is the hallmark of humanity. It is the feature that defines all of our ancestors to the exclusion of our ape relatives." Lucy, who lived in Africa between 4.1 and 3 million years ago, did walk upright. Her hip and leg bones make that clear.


Your source does not state lucy was a "knuckle walker" it states clearly her ancestors were and that she " did walk upright. Her hip and leg bones make that clear".

You stated the pelvis doesn't look like ours at all. Perhaps you could pull up the site I linked pull up the os coxae and see just how close of a comparison that is. I agree it doesn't look like a chimp in the least. It does closely resemble a human.

If we have a fossil of a creature alive at the approximate time as the footprints, and that creature has the characteristics of being the appropriate size as well as being bipedal, why would you not think that it comes from that species? I'm not sure if your stating it came from the actual fossil lucy or her species.

So my final question is what is the alternative? Are the tracks from a modern human of sorts? If that is the case why is there zero evidence of modern humans existing this far back? If animals do not evolve then we should find modern human remains, tools or habitats of some sort wouldn't you think?



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: drivers1492






why is there zero evidence of modern humans existing this far back?



Because modern humans have not yet evolved..

This is why creationist try so hard to hide the truth, they want the gullible to believe the god they created "spoofed" anatomically modern human into existence.
As if somehow denying their lineage gives them a false sense superiority over other men and nature.
When in fact, knowledge will lead to their extinction, relegating them to history as a curiosity of human hubris and self-worship.
edit on fSunday144262f420302 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

great post, some really good info, and plenty that i was unaware of. thanx for the enlightenment, S4U



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: idmonster

You're quite welcome. There's not much point in learning all of that if I can't share it around so I'm glad you appreciated the information. Just remember not to take my word for it, double check everything and reach your own conclusions. The info I presented is definitely a good starting point though. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions or want leads on reference material for research purposes.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join