What transitional form will we have this week?

?

You were presented with a transitional fossil at the beginning of this topic.

Here are a lot more.

ca.search.yahoo.com...

Oh and the artist's rendition is a good idea of what the animal actually looked like, based on studies of living animals. Also, the scientific method is valid, and there is a process called peer review that keeps studies on track.

So let me get this straight: you are trying to convince people that
-Geology (fossil strata)
-Paleontology (fossils themselves)
-Biology (knowing what the animals probably looked like)
-Peer review (validity of science)
-Scientific Method (method to produce results)
-Chemistry (radioactive dating)

...are all bunk? And you base this on faith?

What are you going to try and convince us of next? That a super-powerful being capable of creating a universe and calculating it's values so that it could sustain life, appeared out of absolute nothingness then changed the pre-existing laws of physics to allow himself to exist in the first place?

Wait a minute...

Originally posted by SlyCM
?

You were presented with a transitional fossil at the beginning of this topic.


Oh and the artist's rendition is a good idea of what the animal actually looked like, based on studies of living animals. Also, the scientific method is valid, and there is a process called peer review that keeps studies on track.

Sly are you a scientist? I don't think you are and while you speak as if you are an authority, I will submit to you, their isn't a whole lot I haven't read about this subject so things like "peer review" and the "scientific method" don't impress me much. Most of the data I gather I get from Ariziona State University where I have seen just what kind of emphasis is put on the Scientific method. Ask any Scientist what it is or to list the steps in it and invariably they look at you with their head cocked like a dog who is trying to understand what you just said.

So take it off the pedastal you would have us believe it is on.

Every single solitary link you have in that google search is just more of the same thing and a number of them were known hoaxes. I am surprised to see Darwinian evolutionist are still passing that crap off as legitimate. Their were several more of horses all different sizes but that is just micro evolution being passed off as macro and I get very tired of that same old trick.

Paleontology doesnt do experiments

Biology, especially if it is dominated by Atheists usually speculate what animals "probably" looked like but really have no clue just like the frogamander. Read Icons of Evolution if you want to know more.
Chemistry and radio carbon dating you added just to add more to your argument but really has nothing to do with it as I havent refuted the age of anything. So yeah ALL BUNK. All I asked for out of your so called mountain of evidence is one, just one morsel of evidence to substaniate as proof prima facie. That means SOLID evidence, not this crap I keep seeing that when you peel away all the hyperbole surrounding the damn thing, it is nothing but a 300 million year old dead monkey or some other extinct species they "ASSUME" is a transitional form when the fact is,, they don't have any idea but only wish to further the most asinine hoax in the history of Science. Then we have creatures alive today that have been around millions of years where we find fossils of them and Sharks are Sharks, Alligators are Alligators, Dragon flys are Dragon Flys.

The Science of evolution has proven to be so damn corrupt over so long a period using deceptive practices from manufactured evidence to fabricated results all the way to espionage and acts so deplorable they got busted for it just recently by the united states senate.

If what they have is so drop dead truthful than why must they resort to such spurious acts and deceptions, why must they over compensate for their work by embellishing scientific results as bona - fide facts and out right lies calling fossils intermediate forms when it is purely conjecture.

The Scientific Method is what? Tell me what you think it means?

Here this is what MOST REAL Scientists say:

The Scientific Method
by Donald E. Simanek
Too often the "scientific method" is presented in schools and textbooks as a "recipe" for doing science, with numbered steps even! That's misleading. At the other extreme, someone said that scientific method is "Doing one's damndest with one's mind." I know many have said more profound things about this subject than I will offer, but here's some informal comments about scientific method presented as a set of practical and general guidlines for doing science. Scientists have learned these through trial and error during the entire history of science.
www.lhup.edu...

So whoopdie doo

What are you going to try and convince us of next? That a super-powerful being capable of creating a universe and calculating it's values so that it could sustain life, appeared out of absolute nothingness then changed the pre-existing laws of physics to allow himself to exist in the first place?

Would you like a link that explains that ?

- Con

[edit on 3-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

As satirical as this may seem to some, it pretty much sums it up the way it really is these days. You can tell a lot about a person by the things they laugh at and Scientist laugh at this saying that is soooo true.

The Way it is.

The Real Scientific Method


by Taner Edis

It's time someone composed a slightly more realistic version of Ye Olde Scientifick Methode. Therefore, here it is, refurbished to reflect modern realities:

1 Think up some project that has a good chance of attracting grant money.

2 Devise a radical hypothesis to explain the (yet unobserved) data, and highlight how it is extremely important to support your work since it has such important implications.

3 Repeatedly emphasize how your hypothesis alters our perception of Life, The Universe, and Everything. Even better, hint at how it can lead to immediate corporate applications.

4 Using the grant money, buy expensive equipment, and hire some grad students and postdocs to continually tell you how brilliant you are. Hope they will do some actual work.

5 Get some results which look promising, but are inconclusive enough to justify turning this project into a long-term research program.

6 Go back to step 3 and continue refining until you have a solid
proposal to extend your grant for another year.

7 Publish often during this process. Preferably, every small and incremental "advance" deserves a paper of its own. Be repetitious -- the number of publications is what counts, not their quality.

8 If others repeat the same sort of experiment, and get vaguely the same sort of results, band together to form an interest group.
Organize conferences where you invite and praise each other. Cite each others' work in your papers. Call your general results "___'s Law", where "___" is the most influential member of your group.
Lobby for more money, making sure to point out that your field is "hot," emphasizing that scientific revolutions or commercial products are just around the bend.

9 If new observations or experiments come along which don't fit your law or theory, attack them as obviously wrong. Don't invite researchers who disagree with your interest group to your conferences.
give dissenting papers bad peer reviews in the anonymous review process. Praise their grant proposals as "good" when advising granting agencies, knowing full well that only "excellent" projects stand a chance of getting funded.

10 If political winds shift and you find yourself defending an unpopular theory, make a virtue of it. Read Charles Tart, and sell your project as such a revolutionary idea that we must redesign stagnating orthodox science to accommodate it. Find a senator who will try and create a new government agency dedicated to your interest group's work.

11 While doing all this, go back to step 1 whenever you feel inspired.

www2.truman.edu...

reply to post by RuneSpider


Oh like Dawkins doesn't pretend evolution disproves God? What planet do you live on?

Actually I agree with you if you say evolution doesn't disprove God. It doesn't even explain life. I've said the same over and over. It really doesn;t even conflict with the Bible. Which doesn't explain why so many evolutionists claim that it does. That's my problem. There's a difference between the scientific theory of evolution and the religious faith of Darwinism.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by RuneSpider

 

Oh like Dawkins doesn't pretend evolution disproves God? What planet do you live on?

one of logical consistency and where ad hominem attacks and attempts at character assassination, not to mention outright lies, are frowned upon

dawkins has said, repeatedly, that the only thing that evolution would disprove is a religion's origin story...unless that religion had an origin story remarkably similar to the theory of evolution.

Actually I agree with you if you say evolution doesn't disprove God. It doesn't even explain life. I've said the same over and over. It really doesn;t even conflict with the Bible.

well...it kind of does a bit.
depends on how
historical evolution would. tracing everything back to the Last Universal Common Ancestor WOULD contradict the bible...

Which doesn't explain why so many evolutionists claim that it does.

ah, more lies

even dawkins has said that you religious folk shouldn't find a problem with the theory of evolution...but i doubt you've actually looked at enough of his stuff to actually know that

on this site myself and other "evolutionists" (i started a thread on why that's such a stupid word a while back...am i a gravitiest as well?) have actually tried to make it clear that the theory of evolution only interferes with religion when the religious want it to.

That's my problem. There's a difference between the scientific theory of evolution and the religious faith of Darwinism.

...*facepalm*

more lies and misleading.

Asx is right, creationism is destroying ATS

Conspiriology:

All you seem to do is cry "bunk" at everything and flourish in the gaps. There is indeed no such thing as macroevolution in the way that you explain it to be.

What do you expect in a true transitional fossil?

How could evolution be proven in your eyes?

I recommend a read of my "Is Evolution Improbable?" thread.

Originally posted by SlyCM
Conspiriology: There is indeed no such thing as macroevolution in the way that you explain it to be.

I can assure you sly,, macro evolution would be the last thing I would ever try to explain if I would at all. I just don't believe in lies much less attempting to "explain them"

What do you expect in a true transitional fossil?

a true transitional fossil

How could evolution be proven in your eyes?

Evidence

I recommend a read of my "Is Evolution Improbable?" thread.

I don't have a problem with evolution, I have a BIG problem with Atheists attempting to bastardize Science and Science vernacular with new meanings for words like "evidence" "species" "theory" "The Scientific Method" all of which are another topic of discusion. Their use of Darwinian macro evolution that Darwin himself couldn't substantiate with anything more than his wishful thinking.

Why I would want to visit your thread about evolution improbable when I know it isn't only improbable,,

It's IMPOSSIBLE.

- Con

No, you fail to see what I am asking. I know that you say that evolution is impossible. The problem is, more than likely you just don't understand it or have some bizarre feeling that even considering that it may be true will destroy God and send you to hell (or at least that's what it seems like).

There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Tons and tons and tons. Pick up a ninth grade science textbook. Or, read these:

www.gate.net...
evolution.berkeley.edu...
anthro.palomar.edu...
evolution.berkeley.edu...
www.nap.edu...
txtwriter.com...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.pbs.org...
www.youtube.com... *
en.wikipedia.org...
bioweb.cs.earlham.edu...
www.blackwellpublishing.com...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.nyu.edu...
www.evolutionpages.com...
www.anth.ucsb.edu...
www.teachersdomain.org...
www8.nationalacademies.org...
www.mos.org...
www.news.com.au...
sciencenow.sciencemag.org...
www.pbs.org...
atheism.about.com...
www.truthinscience.org.uk...
www.biologyreference.com...
www.windows.ucar.edu...=/cool_stuff/tour_evolution_0.html
vuletic.com...

What I am specifically looking for is a hypothetical piece of evidence one could use to prove evolution to you, because so far there doesn't appear to be one. A frog could probably hop in front of you, grow wings and fly away and it still wouldn't be "good enough".

Furthermore, true transitional fossils have been presented to you multiple times. Here are some more you may not have seen.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.palaeos.com...
talkorigins.org...

Take a crack at that one.

* Of particular note is a comment by"xxxaabbccxxx"

GREAT VID, but I THINK there MIGHT be TOO MANY HARD words for MOST CREATIONISTS. You see, they know NOTHING about BIOLOGY.

Originally posted by SlyCM

No, you fail to see what I am asking. I know that you say that evolution is impossible. The problem is, more than likely you just don't understand it or have some bizarre feeling that even considering that it may be true will destroy God and send you to hell (or at least that's what it seems like).

asked and answered.

What I am specifically looking for is a hypothetical piece of evidence one could use to prove evolution to you, because so far there doesn't appear to be one. A frog could probably hop in front of you, grow wings and fly away and it still wouldn't be "good enough".

That would be good enough, have you got that kind of evidence?

Didn't think so.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Tons and tons and tons. Pick up a ninth grade science textbook. Or, read these:

Tell ya what smart guy just show me the most compelling piece in the list rather than ask me to read all that.

Take a crack at that one.

* Of particular note is a comment by"xxxaabbccxxx"

GREAT VID, but I THINK there MIGHT be TOO MANY HARD words for MOST CREATIONISTS. You see, they know NOTHING about BIOLOGY.

Thats just the kind of statement I'd expect from you Atheist and one I mention here where it only seems to hurt ther credibility further www.abovetopsecret.com...


So what you're telling me is you not only believe but can prove that all life is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection?

Is that what I am to understand?

- Con






[edit on 7-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


i'm just going to address the most ridiculous part of this post, that you took an example of someone posting a comment on youtube as an example of atheists

it's youtube for crying out loud! that's the home to some of the most idiotic comments from any side of any argument you can find.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

i'm just going to address the most ridiculous part of this post, that you took an example of someone posting a comment on youtube as an example of atheists

it's youtube for crying out loud! that's the home to some of the most idiotic comments from any side of any argument you can find.

I wouldn't know madness, I rarely use youtube as my 36k connection does not allow me the kind of broadband opportunities where I live as the rest of our apparent third world country when it comes to broadband technology.

It really doesn't matter where the comments are made especially when one considers they are made at all. The comments made in that quote reflect the very stereotype neo Darwinist Atheist say all the time and I have seen them said all over ATS.

I can't say you are one to single us out and show a prejudice towards us as you hate just about everyone and have said so.

no, atheists actually tend to be fiercly independent. i for one actually hate most people. - Madness

The kind of ridicule creationists have endured is no different than what minorities have had to face where Grown men who are supposed science elite have drawn caricatures of the "fundie" creationists so why would comments from youtube be any different when the example of leadership in this sect of Scioreligious Zealots of Darwinian indoctrination lead by such a pathetically immature and irresponsible example.

Perhaps it is their personal experience eh?

"personal experience" is just a mask for stereotyping - Madness

Or perhaps they are just following the paranoia and ultimate bigotry of others who are just as ignorant to single out a group and make disparaging remarks and basless accusations predicated on hate, fear and a total lack of consideration for the thoughts and beliefs of others having just as much right to be here and express themselves without prejudice and false accusations that you subscribe to. All of which are seen as part of MY experience with YOU as an Atheist and the most Vocal voice for Atheism on this site.

When you say things like this madness

Asx is right, creationism is destroying ATS - Madness

you just proved

my point

- Con

The kind of ridicule creationists have endured is no different than what minorities have had to face where Grown men who are supposed science elite have drawn caricatures of the "fundie" creationists so why would comments from youtube be any different when the example of leadership in this sect of Scioreligious Zealots of Darwinian indoctrination lead by such a pathetically immature and irresponsible example.

Problem is, creationism didn't start out controversial. It dominated man's thought for thousands and thousands of years, until it was proven false.

You can expect that kind of redicule when you not only hopelessly cling to an ancient fantasy, but attempt to (re)force it upon others. It is the latter problem that generates venom from scientists. They (me included) don't care if one person is delusional. They do care if such delusion is spread, and will try to stop it.

I won't bother pointing out the most compelling evidence for evolution, because what proves it in 99.5% of scientific minds isn't good enough for you anyway (and we can expect another .4999% to be theistic evolutionists). Nothing is good enough. If the frog did fly away, it would be an "act of God" to you.

Found this google searching, though. I would call it pretty compelling.
digg.com...

However, evolution can be proven wrong. Show me fossils of rabbits in the Precambrian and I will concede defeat.

Originally posted by SlyCM

Problem is, creationism didn't start out controversial. It dominated man's thought for thousands and thousands of years, until it was proven false.

Oh really? what do you think creationism is?

You can expect that kind of redicule when you not only hopelessly cling to an ancient fantasy, but attempt to (re)force it upon others.

What I can expect? is that what you think? That's what I can EXPECT!


Thanks for the heads up sly, Ill tell you what I can expect, and that's to have my rights to my opinion whether YOU agree to it or NOT.

This is why I say Atheists are a punch in the face waiting to happen.

You think you would get away with that if not for the internet tuff guy? This is the EXACT kind of bigotry and hatred the that Ben Stein talks about in his movie. The same kind the US government found Atheist evolutionists guilty of also.

If all you can do is ridicule others merely for having another point of view, I got to ask just who in the hell do you think YOU ARE?

I can expect a measure of respect from those I spent 6 years in the military defending the very freedoms and right to have the very difference of opinion you enjoy. I don't expect anything for that, no thankyou no nothing, hell I don't even expect you to understand that so Ill explain it like you were a 6 year old.

That means YOUR right to believe any asinine thing you want whether I agreed with it or not and whether you appreciate it or not.

So the last thing I am going to do is have some sophomoric , puffed up angry, arrogant, acrimonious atheist give me a bunch a crap because I don't agree with his narrow minded worldview.

That isn't just a casual opinion I have, that is the kind of humanary fundametal rights for freedom I would die for so that self righteous ignorant mouthy atheists like you can have that kind of opinion but if I were you,,, NM you ain't worth it.

by the way sly,, I never forced a damn thing on you or anyone else so unless you can prove otherwise , man up, or,,

shame on you for

saying so.

- Con









[edit on 7-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

Thanks for the heads up sly, Ill tell you what I can expect, and that's to have my rights to my opinion whether YOU agree to it or NOT.

And yet I do not have my own right, even if I back it up with scientific evidence while you offer none?

This is why I say Atheists are a punch in the face waiting to happen.

Interesting you feel you are so correct that violence would need to be invoked in order to quiet your opponent.

If all you can do is ridicule others merely for having another point of view, I got to ask just who in the hell do you think YOU ARE?

I think I'm the guy who posted the evidence to reinforce his point of view instead of merely insulting my opponent.

I can expect a measure of respect from those I spent 6 years in the military defending the very freedoms and right to have the very difference of opinion you enjoy. I don't expect anything for that, no thankyou no nothing, hell I don't even expect you to understand that so Ill explain it like you were a 6 year old.

Assuming you are telling the truth, this doesn't apply to me because I am in fact a Canadian. Either way, your military service does not add credence to creationism, and your attempts to belittle my person are clear.

Keep in mind that while I am not religious I will not be spared if the enemies of Christianity decide to attack, eg, 9/11.

So the last thing I am going to do is have some sophomoric , puffed up angry, arrogant, acrimonious atheist give me a bunch a crap because I don't agree with his narrow minded worldview.

It's called a debate.

That isn't just a casual opinion I have, that is the kind of humanary fundametal rights for freedom I would die for so that self righteous ignorant mouthy atheists like you can have that kind of opinion but if I were you,,, NM you ain't worth it.

Creationism, and it's ferocious defence thereof, is not a kind of "humanary fundamental rights". Again you are attempting to belittle me and dragging superfluous outside elements into this discussion.

by the way sly,, I never forced a damn thing on you or anyone else so unless you can prove otherwise , man up, or,,

You yourself have not (that I know of). I never stated that. Creationists, as a whole, have.

If it's not rediculous that you believe creationism, post some evidence to suggest the opposite. Mere opinion and faith is being put on a pedestal it doesn't belong on here, as are religious beliefs.

However upon reviewing my earlier posts I did find some attacks that were, more or less, against you as a person or at the very least could be interpreted that way, and for that I apologize.

Still, you have more than reciprocated - and also attacked numerous times, both in this thread and others, unprovoked - , and I don't feel I deserve this... as of now I don't plan to return to this thread.

Sorry for screwing it up, MIMS.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by SlyCM]

Originally posted by SlyCM

And yet I do not have my own right, even if I back it up with scientific evidence while you offer none?

Nice try sly but your so called evidence had nothing to do with it and you know very well what did.

Interesting you feel you are so correct that violence would need to be invoked in order to quiet your opponent.

No you are being dishonest sly, it's not to merely silence them it would be the direct result of the ridicule YOU said I can expect for having my belief which by the way you couldn't help adding insult to injury with your own opinion of people who have those same beliefs.

You want to talk that way to people thinking they deserve it because they are theists, well I got a place you should try that called the middle east and will see if what I would do isn't a hell of a lot more easy to live with than the kind of reaction to your bigotry for theism you would get there.

I think I'm the guy who posted the evidence to reinforce his point of view instead of merely insulting my opponent.

You posted again a list of links like 50 of them that I am not going to bother reading after the first five I saw had already been debunked. It isn't my fault you believe everything you read.

Assuming you are telling the truth, this doesn't apply to me because I am in fact a Canadian. Either way, your military service does not add credence to creationism, and your attempts to belittle my person are clear.

Oh don't sugar coat it sly, just call me a liar, that kind of thing never stops you. Belittle your person? Naaah nothing I could have said could have made you look as little a person as you do yourself.

Keep in mind that while I am not religious I will not be spared if the enemies of Christianity decide to attack, eg, 9/11.

You are the enemy of Christianity pal and you have done more to prove that than you have evolution but that's your business and it would seem the mission of every Atheists I meet nowdays with the exception of a few.

It's called a debate

Yeah, something you can't do without suggesting anyone in a debate with you can expect to be ridiculed, mocked, and harrassed. Your argumentative nature however doesn't prove your ability to argue, it just demonstrates you lack of skill and your inability to be rational. Then when someone finally has had enough of your crap, it isn't enough that they can expect to be ridiculed by you, but NOW they don't have a right to get upset about it either. Sorry son, that dog won't hunt.

Creationism, and it's ferocious defence thereof, is not a kind of "humanary fundamental rights". Again you are attempting to belittle me and dragging superfluous outside elements into this discussion.

No Sly,, what is superfluous is the idea you have that the way to deal with creationists is to ridicule them which is right out of Dawkins book Hitchens and Harris. Then you guys wonder why you have such a problem with politics because you guys are pre-occupied hating Christians and Christianity. Just google atheism and check out the websites and what are they all talking about whining about.

Then do one on Christianity and see what they talk about.

Number the threads started by atheists about Christianity 10 - 1 to ours then look at the one asty started where he suggests all kinds of back of the bus options for creationists while forgetting he is discriminating against a people for religion but hides it by calling them creationists but calls creationism a religion for the reason why he objects to it.

by the way sly,, I never forced a damn thing on you or anyone else so unless you can prove otherwise , man up, or,,

You yourself have not (that I know of). I never stated that. reationists, as a whole, have.

No they haven't forced anyone to do anything, YOU just say they do.

If it's not rediculous that you believe creationism, post some evidence to suggest the opposite. Mere opinion and faith is being put on a pedestal it doesn't belong on here, as are religious beliefs.

Whats that got to do with me sly, I haven't mentioned my religion but if you are going to insist creationism is religion then quit asking me to talk about it.

Still, you have more than reciprocated - and also attacked numerous times, both in this thread and others, unprovoked - , and I don't feel I deserve this... as of now I don't plan to return to this thread.

Yeah, quote it then.

All I asked you was if you sincerely believed that all life is the product of Darwinian natural selection because it was proven. '

So you never answered me twice now so maybe that can't be proven

or you have none. Either way, if you believe it you know that you are the same that you too believe in something you can't prove.

That is a fact

- Con





[edit on 8-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

first off, i'm not addressing any singular post, but . . .

Scientific evidence merely means that it was obtained through the scientific method. Nothing more. It does not mean it's valid.

Environmental adaption is not evolution.

"The Theory of Evolution" is pretty much explained with it's name. It's a theory.

Technically there has never been a transitional species found; only creatures with slight variation in characteristics, but still completely congruent within known species, or simply different species. Even if an ancient transitional species was found, it would sadly be next to impossible to confirm this, because of the fallacies of fossil interpretation. Finding a transitional species alive n' kicking would be great.





[edit on 6/8/2008 by JPhish]

This week's transitional form

... is described here.

Another day, another fish with legs...

Here I am, returning to this thread. Response to Conspiriology.

Many atheists, in North America, attack Christian creationism because it is the most immediate threat to reason and science for their society, and I assume it is also because of a strong urge to be contrarian (a common trait of scientific minds), since the majority of people in a given area will be one religion, making it the best contrarian target.

I personally wouldn't dare discuss the matter in real life unless I am reasonably certain the person agrees with me, for two reasons.

1) People tend not to, or at least should not, take the internet so seriously. Also, especially on ATS, different sides are presented with level standings in any given debate. In real life, let's face it; evolution has such a powerful and massive scientific following that any proponent of evolution has a strong edge. On ATS, I can listen to creationist arguments in their original tone; unfortunately, I haven't yet been presented with any.

2) I don't want to have mud throw in my face, or be punched, or shot, for attacking a baseless worldview, and I do not wish to inflict any sort of pain (i.e., fighting back), let alone eternal damnation, on someone who is guilty only of attempting to spread his/her honest viewpoint. I don't quite understand fundamentalist Christian motivation; that is, according to them all unbelievers burn in hell anyways. However, the motivation is powerful and very very freightening.

However, back to the thread.

www.talkorigins.org...

This week: a lizard with half a turtle shell.

Isn't nature wonderful?

[edit on 28-11-2008 by andre18]