It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There is no missing link!

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by smartie
 


There is irrefutable proof. It's well-documented, and has been understood for ages. The reason some people don't believe it is because they have a pre-existing belief that they'd rather not topple. It's easier for them to come up with some flimsy, shaky, incorrect notion to throw 'doubt' on the theory of evolution than to believe it. People who don't believe in evolution are either ignorant of it, or not being rational. There is no third choice.

I'm not going to lambast you for being a creationist. I will, though, point out that you have a very limited grasp of the theory of evolution, and of the scientific method. Clearly, otherwise you'd understand just how accurate the theory of evolution is.




posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Howdy TALIN ... I will refute quite a few of your points here.

They are regurgitated Creationist misinformation and fallacies.

Also, you have not presented any sources.


Originally posted by TALIN

In 1984, in Eichstätt (Germany), at the International Archaeopteryx Conference, there was a major world-wide gathering of scientists who specialized in avian (bird) evolution. The outcomes of their meetings were that they disagreed on just about everything about the creature, and they had broad agreement amongst themselves that Archaeopteryx was a true bird.


You are trying to show that in the study of palaeontology, Archaeopteryx is not considered to be transitional. Wrong.


Even Wells's claim that paleontologists do not think Archaeopteryx is "ancestral" is incorrect. Archaeopteryx has no features that would actually disbar it from being a direct ancestor of living birds. Whether it was a direct ancestor of today's birds or not is irrelevant: Archaeopteryx exhibits unique features of the last ancestor it shared with birds, so, regardless whether it is a lineal ancestor, it still preserves features that indicate what the last ancestor of Archaeopteryx and birds may have been like. In other words, Archaeopteryx has many features intermediate between those of its dinosaurian ancestors and its avian descendants, which is exactly what would be predicted by evolution. No amount of stridency on Wells's part can change that.

Source

More sources:
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.actionbioscience.org...



The world famous fossil, Java Man , was re-constructed in 1891 from just a thigh bone and a skull cap. Dr Eugene Dubois, the discoverer, found the thigh bone 15 metres away from the skull cap, yet he combined them together into the one individual.


And since then there as been many more fossils of Homo erectus found that support Dubois original findings:

Excavations here from 1936 to 1941 led to the discovery of the first hominid fossil at this site. Later, 50 fossils of Meganthropus palaeo and Pithecanthropus erectus/Homo erectus were found – half of all the world's known hominid fossils. Inhabited for the past one and a half million years, Sangiran is one of the key sites for the understanding of human evolution.

Source

More Sources:
www.archaeologyinfo.com...
anthropology.si.edu...



Boxgrove Man', a recently discovered fossil, has been dubbed the 'oldest European' ... The fossil has been assigned the age of 500,000 years old, yet the shin-bone is indistinguishable from that of a modern human.


This information makes it sound like only one incomplete shin-bone is the only fossil record we have for Homo heidelbergensis. Wrong ... we have lots of fossils ... and it was a jaw bone.


Homo heidelbergensis was named for a jaw of this species discovered near the town of Mauer, southeast of Heidelberg, Germany in 1907. Since then, fossils of Homo heidelbergensis have been found throughout the Old World from tropical to temperate zones. These widespread populations show regional variations in physical appearance.

Source

Other sources:
anthro.palomar.edu...
www.msu.edu...

Oh yes, Southwest Colorado Man, Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were mistakes and/or hoaxes. No one argues with Creationists on this one.

Source

Yet, Creationists jump on these now obvious and admitted errors like a junky jumps on their next hit as if this is proof that the whole Theory of Evolution is wrong.

How ridiculous and childish.

You totally ignore the HUGE amount of other fossils that we have found ... and the Creationists like you sprout this information like it is fact with out doin any research other than reading through sites like AIG.

Right here .... after 20 mins of searching on the net ... I have presented real facts that show what you have said is plain wrong.

If you would have done the same you could have saved yourself some time and maybe even expanded your knowledge.

Show me where it is shown that the HUNDREDS of fossils of Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis or Archaeopteryx are simply pig, horse or "just bird" bones , with real sources backed with real science and I will look at your information and re-assess my position on evolution.

Would you ... nay, will you do the same with your position?



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420

There is irrefutable proof. It's well-documented, and has been understood for ages. The reason some people don't believe it is because they have a pre-existing belief that they'd rather not topple. It's easier for them to come up with some flimsy, shaky, incorrect notion to throw 'doubt' on the theory of evolution than to believe it. People who don't believe in evolution are either ignorant of it, or not being rational. There is no third choice.

I'm not going to lambast you for being a creationist. I will, though, point out that you have a very limited grasp of the theory of evolution, and of the scientific method. Clearly, otherwise you'd understand just how accurate the theory of evolution is.


Dave, you never cease to amaze me the double standards you esouse the many feet you put in your mouth the very limited options, choices and thinking you contend we must subscribe to and the very idea you have that we would seek your approval as someone we should see as more knowledgeable than us in tghe first place makes me,, well frankly Dave it makes me laugh at you and feel pity for you all at the same time.

1)

There is irrefutable proof.


No there is not Dave for if there were you would not be seeing new fossils being discovered having such celebration as the next "big" thing to prove evolution, in fact if evolution did NOT have such compelling arguments against it religiously motivated or not, YOU wouldn't even BE HERE!

We would be discussing something so obviously a fact that it would be a scientific fact as solid as the law of gravity. Yet you don't find scientists celebrating peer reviews of another item going up and falling down again.

Science in and of itself is OVER RATED and I am not all that impressed with people using the word as a setup to garner more respect or to assume they are automatically going to have a better grasp of things REAL Scientists know how to explain making such things easier to understand. This Science has evolved into a more muddy incohereant unintelligible construct of confusion and speculation so fast and so often, the changes themselves are reason enough for suspicion and scrutiny.

The mere fact their is an industry being investigated for manufactured fossils that may prove bird to dino theory is enough of a reason for dismissing most of these ideas as pure unadulterated scams by a Science so rife wth fraud and fakes that one would have every right to tell you and your assertions over your arrogant opinions that we have NO DAMN REASON to even trust that area of science much less accept it as gospel. Hell why the hell should we.

2)

I will, though, point out that you have a very limited grasp of the theory of evolution


I am surprised that you didn't use the word "clearly" in this sentence but I am NOT surprised you assume anyone disagreeing with evolution is because you are smnarter than they are about it. How very smart that is for you. pffft jeeez you are somethin else dude and just what the hell does the scientific method have to do with it. Tell me Dave,, lets just see how much you know about the SM. Dave how many peer reviews have you read this month? Then tell me how many protocols in this so called Scientific Method their are? Were they used at all? More important is just how you think that the SM is the damn be all end all of scientific discovery. What makes you think that it guarantees Honesty, Integrity and Objectivity in any of those reviews read where the few that DO use it, don't fudge their data. You are naive Dave and to even use the SM as some sort of suggestion we are supposed to be impressed by you and your post is a clue to your not having a clue to start with.


3)

It's easier for them to come up with some flimsy, shaky, incorrect notion to throw 'doubt' on the theory of evolution than to believe it. People who don't believe in evolution are either ignora
nt of it, or not being rational. There is no third choice.


Another words readers,, if you don't agree with Dave and his obviuously devout worship of his religion of evolution, then you are either an idiot or irrational. How perfectly RATIONAL of you!

Jeez if you only could see you are as guilty of that and those you deride. Oh and by the way Dave,, that third choice you say doesn't exist, is as totally illogical as I have seen you get.


I think from now on when I explain why evolution is a religion, Ill say "see Dave" and link them to a string of Dave quotes belittling creationists without ever once substantiating a single so called instance of that mountain you call evidence.

How utterly scientific of you Dave. Guys like you give Scientists a bad name. Please if you are going to defend evolution then be scientific about it and don't place limits on it or any new science that proves your old science is dead and rotting in the mountain of fables called junk science. Evolution has reached a point where more frauds are being discovered than fossils.

Got a love that. If you think it's so much a fact then why are you trying to prove it?

Try proving it with the SM Dave and ill bet you a grand you can't come up with any better a quote than Richard Dawkins " I believe but can not prove all life is the product of darwinian evolution and natural selection" - Prof. Richard Dawkins

Good luck fundie evo



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Howdy TALIN ... I will refute quite a few of your points here.

They are regurgitated Creationist misinformation and fallacies.

Also, you have not presented any sources.


Howdy to you too Horza,



I will refute quite a few of your points here.

They are regurgitated Creationist misinformation and fallacies.



No, horza, what you will do is argue my points the only way you seem to know how, the typical way most Atheists do in fact is how we see you do here. First by making some cookie cutter statement to disparage and lable me as the adversarial evil one of terminal stupidity the "Genus Creationist" who as usual and for some unknown reason ALWAYS uses regurgiated misinformation and OF COURSE they are ALWAYS fallacies.

Hence I don't waste much time seeking the approval of people like you as the very first comment you have made in your post indicates I am already correct in NOT furnishing sources.


LATEST EVIDENCE: OSTRICH STUDY REFUTES THE DINO-BIRD STORY


Dr. Feduccia: His new study is enough to bury the 'dino-bird" myth
The latest blow to the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory came from a study made on the embryology of ostriches.

Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied a series of live ostrich eggs and, once again, concluded that there cannot be an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. EurekAlert, a scientific portal held by the American Association for the The Advancement of Science (AAAS), reports the following:

Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill... opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs...

Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said... "Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three... Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible."

In the same report, Dr. Freduccia also made important comments on the invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory:

"There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia] said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old."

If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences, Feduccia said. Theropod dinosaurs, for example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method of tooth implantation and replacement."

This evidence once again reveals that the "dino-bird" hype is just another "icon" of Darwinism: A myth that is supported only for the sake of a dogmatic faith in the theory.



Yet, Creationists jump on these now obvious and admitted errors like a junky jumps on their next hit as if this is proof that the whole Theory of Evolution is wrong.

How ridiculous and childish.


First of all Horza I don't like it when you are so presumptuous to think that I am discounting anything based on one piece of evidence when the POINT I'm making is that such frauds and fAKES ARE USED in my post to establish NOT a reason to disprove evolution but to give reasonable doubt to the Scientists themselves as a area of science which must be given a very close eye to the deceptions they use and I have seen you use many too. For instance; suggesting there are no fossils found that disprove evolution or that there is nothing in the fossil YOU are talking about to disprove it being a transitional, is a clever use of semantics but when we look at it that way, I can just as easily say there is nothing in the fossil record to disprove that unicorns exist or the flying spaghetti monster.

I am not looking to science to show me things that disprove anything I am looking for evidence that PROVES IT and THAT is what they fail to do. Also, I have no idea how many times a creationist has presented you with the same hoax examples so if anyone is being childish it is YOU for again being so damn presumptuous when I wasn't talking to you in the first place.

If you would like I can show you HUNDREDS more fakes but not just that but the abject resistence for this area of philosophy (as I don't agree to evolution being a science at all) to correct these fallacies in our public schools text books. The point I am making about cave man issue is that these are bipeddal man and all those you have alleged are refuted can only be a bonafide fact because YOU posted them when I can spend the same twenty minutes on the internet and find arguments that refute yours which you will suggest is "regurgitated"

So to your last suggestion:


Show me where it is shown that the HUNDREDS of fossils of Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis or Archaeopteryx are simply pig, horse or "just bird" bones , with real sources backed with real science and I will look at your information and re-assess my position on evolution.

Would you ... nay, will you do the same with your position?


Here again, I will at least be honest about it as I have seen Jphish paint you in so many corners in posted debates I felt embarrassed for you, yet here you are on the same side of the same science arguing the same things. So no I don't think it is even a possibility with your current bias towards creationists.



[edit on 7-10-2008 by TALIN]



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TALIN
Howdy to you too Horza,


Hello again TALIN!

I am not Atheist. I believe in a creative force ... I do not believe in the Christian/Islamic god however and I do recognise the evidence presented for common decent as being overwhelming.

Evolution is a gods tool for creation, if you like.



No, horza, what you will do is argue my points the only way you seem to know how, the typical way most Atheists do in fact is how we see you do here. First by making some cookie cutter statement to disparage and lable me as the adversarial evil one of terminal stupidity the "Genus Creationist" who as usual and for some unknown reason ALWAYS uses regurgiated misinformation and OF COURSE they are ALWAYS fallacies.


But you do regurgitate it.

By that I mean that you take information from a Creationist web-site and post that info without cross checking that information and the sources.

The info you had posted below is a great example.


Originally posted by TALIN

LATEST EVIDENCE: OSTRICH STUDY REFUTES THE DINO-BIRD STORY

Dr. Feduccia: His new study is enough to bury the 'dino-bird" myth
The latest blow to the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory came from a study made on the embryology of ostriches.

EurekAlert, a scientific portal held by the American Association for the The Advancement of Science (AAAS), reports the following:

Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said... "Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three... Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC.

In the same report, Dr. Freduccia also made important comments on the invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory:

"There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia] said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old."

This evidence once again reveals that the "dino-bird" hype is just another "icon" of Darwinism: A myth that is supported only for the sake of a dogmatic faith in the theory.



What you have done here is gone to a site like darwinismrefuted.com and posted the info they have there without double checking the background the the story.

Yes, Dr. Freduccia does not agree that birds evolved from theropods but what this article fails purposefully to mention is that Dr. Freduccia believes that birds evolved from archosaurs!

Yes, Dr. Freduccia believes, studies and through his work proves that evolution happens.

But darwinismrefuted.com ignores this so they can use his work out of context to try and discredit evolution.

Did you realise that Dr. Freduccia was an evolutionist and that this study wasn't used as evidence against evolution but as an alternative theory to the evolution of birds before you posted that info?

Here is his bio: www.bio.unc.edu...



the POINT I'm making is that such frauds and fAKES ARE USED in my post to establish NOT a reason to disprove evolution but to give reasonable doubt to the Scientists themselves as a area of science which must be given a very close eye to the deceptions they use and I have seen you use many too.


And I showed that the information you posted and the sites that you got that information from are wrong. You were wrong about Java Man being a fake/fraud, you where wrong about Boxgrove Man being a fake/fraud, you where wrong about Nebraska Man being a fake/fraud.

Where is your evidence that scientists are deliberately using deception for the proof of evolution??



For instance; suggesting there are no fossils found that disprove evolution


But there isn't ... Show us where there is ...



I am not looking to science to show me things that disprove anything I am looking for evidence that PROVES IT and THAT is what they fail to do.


Why do you not believe the fossil record we have now?

Is it because you think that the evidence is incomplete, bad or fraudulent or because you think it contradicts a fundamental interpretation of the bible.

Please answer this:

Would you believe in evolution if a "missing link" where found???



Also, I have no idea how many times a creationist has presented you with the same hoax examples so if anyone is being childish it is YOU for again being so damn presumptuous when I wasn't talking to you in the first place.


Sorry ... I wasn't meaning that you where childish ... I was trying to refer to Creationism as a whole ... I should have pointed this out ... apologies ... but that is the thing TALIN ... every single time that a Creationist argues about Fakes/Frauds, they use the same tired old examples ... because that's all many of them have. And these examples have been shown to be irrelevant, wrong and deceptive.



If you would like I can show you HUNDREDS more fakes


I don't think that you can. Show us the fossils, that have been pivotal in showing evolution is a fact, that have been fakes.

I'm not talking about black market fake fossils, that some dodgy bugger tries to sell as the real thing, but a instance where a fossil that is considered by scientists, TODAY, to be proof of evolution is an out and out fake.

I am intrigued to see what you can show us.

TALIN, the reason I am bias against Creationists is because the movement uses blatant fallacies, disinformation and, on their web sites, post things like this:


No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.


As someone searching for the truth, I cannot accept nor agree with this blind acceptance of a source that even within theistic circles is not considered a complete historical or factual record.





[edit on 7/10/08 by Horza]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
Hello again TALIN!
I am not Atheist. I believe in a creative force ... I do not believe in the Christian/Islamic god however and I do recognise the evidence presented for common decent as being overwhelming.
Evolution is a gods tool for creation, if you like.


some tool, I would think you would be able to see the evidence of this tool in the context of intelligent design but random mutation and natural selection doesn't leave room for a user of such a tool. Your adjectives are many but your substance corroborating what I have seen YOU regurgitate can not be matched in the definition of such embellished descriptions, they are in fact your opinion but like I said to Dave, they are no better at proving evolution then is quoted by Richard Dawkins himself as nothing more then what he believes but can not prove.



What you have done here is gone to a site like darwinismrefuted.com and posted the info they have there without double checking the background the the story.

Yes, Dr. Freduccia does not agree that birds evolved from theropods but what this article fails purposefully to mention is that Dr. Freduccia believes that birds evolved from archosaurs!
Yes, Dr. Freduccia believes, studies and through his work proves that evolution happens.

But darwinismrefuted.com ignores this so they can use his work out of context to try and discredit evolution.

Did you realise that Dr. Freduccia was an evolutionist and that this study wasn't used as evidence against evolution but as an alternative theory to the evolution of birds before you posted that info?


Yeah and I don't care where it came from, just like I don't care where yours came from, if I did, I would say the same thing you are telling me that if my information happens to come from a dot com that espouses a different POV then yours it doesn't have any value and that is simply wrong.

I have seen Atheist websites horza and do you know what 99% of them are so obsessed with that it makes up so much of their sites content?
You got it, Christianity, mocking it, making fun of it, deriding it, ridiculing it, with the rest talking about how much more intelligent Atheists are.

You do the same search of Christian websites and do you see what they are obsessed about?

The Hungry

The Homeless

The Poor

Those without health insurance needing assistance etc;
Ya know,, stuff that doesn't matter and stuff that isn't that important.

So when I see someone like Neil Degrasse Tyson saying he is using science to advance his atheism and then I check out a search of atheists sites seeing all that vitriolic minutia sung by bitches with bad attitudes I don't really believe they are that much more inclined to be any more honest then those creationists websites that are not making their life's mission about singling out a group of people and insulting them merely because they have a belief system other than their own.

I have read so many books about evolution buy secular authors they would cover my living room floor and 17 dvd's moreover I DO know of feducias work, the fact he is an evolutionist was to demonstrate I read THAT kind of thing too but still I am guilty in your opinion of using only creationist material and information. I don't care what he has left out as you will see in all these sites I have just looked at
www.google.com...,WZPA:2008-40,WZPA:en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Dr.+Feduccia+believes+that+birds+evolved+from +archosaurs!&spell=1

After reading all that you see not even evolutionists sing the same song so when you tell me what song YOU happen to sing, let me just save you the time and suggest when YOU guys get your act together and figure out which scientists theory about birds to dino is the REAL one, then let me know but as for now I let them bicker amongst themselves knowing they will never know because it is, as I said, all based on subjective opinion and NOT FACT.



And I showed that the information you posted and the sites that you got that information from are wrong. You were wrong about Java Man being a fake/fraud, you where wrong about Boxgrove Man being a fake/fraud, you where wrong about Nebraska Man being a fake/fraud.
Where is your evidence that scientists are deliberately using deception for the proof of evolution??


No I was not wrong and ther are many in science of evolution that also see them for what they really are. As for your challenge to prove scientists are deliberately using deception to prove evolution ?

Are you kidding me?

C'mon Horza do your homework, I know you have heard of haeckle and his deception but then we have recently discovered the one where the peppered moths were not only deceptive, they don't even do that on trees at all.


Evolutionists go so far in this subject that they can even invent very different faces for the same skull. The three entirely different reconstructions made for the fossil called Zinjantropus is a famous example showing how persistent evolutionists are in producing these false masks.

Evolutionists engage not only in drawing and modeling tricks. Sometimes they commit deliberate forgeries.

The most famous of these frauds is the Piltdown fossil introduced in England in 1912 by an evolutionist named Charles Dawson. This fossil was presented as the most important transitional form between ape and man and was displayed in museums for more than thirty years. Experts who reexamined the fossil in 1949 discovered that it was a forgery that had been produced by attaching an orangutan’s jaw to a human skull.

“Nebraska Man”. was cooked up in 1922 on the basis of a single fossil tooth. It was soon revealed that the tooth that had been the source of inspiration for Nebraska Man in fact belonged to a wild pig.
Many other fossil skulls have been presented as great evidence for evolution failed one by one.



Neanderthal Man was advanced as evidence in 1856, debunked as fraud1960.

Piltdown Man was advanced as evidence in 1912, debunked as fraud 1953.

Hesperopithecus was advanced as evidence in 1922, debunked as fraud 1927.

Zinjantropus was advanced as evidence in 1959, debunked as fraud 1960.

Ramapithecus was advanced as evidence in 1964, debunked as fraud 1979.

Hey, you asked for it horza, only this time you asked someone who is so obsessed with this science and its deceptive practices, I even use professional criminal back round applications and services to investigate this stuff.

Need more ?


Scientists Say No Evidence Exists That Therapod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds

An eminent paleontologist in Beijing, Xu Xing, now claims that the fossil is not even genuine. Rather, ‘Archaeoraptor liaoningensis’ was really combined from the body and head of a birdlike creature and the tail of a different dinosaur. Dr Xu said that a fossil in a private collection in China contains the mirror image of the tail of the alleged Archaeoraptor.

But it might’t be a deliberate fake like ‘Piltdown Man’, a human skull and an ape’s jaw. Dr Xu said:‘For science, this is a disaster. When pieces are stolen and smuggled out, sometimes blocks of fossils are matched together mistakenly. That can be a big mistake, and it misleads the public.’

After that, scientists in China claimed to have discovered yet another faked tail—this one added by a Chinese farmer to a flying pterosaur. Apparently this one has fooled the editors of Nature, another journal singled out by Dr Olsen (above) as overzealous to proselytize the dinosaur-to-bird theory.

For example, in 1996 there were headlines like ‘Feathered Fossil Proves Some Dinosaurs Evolved into Birds.’ This was about a fossil called Sinosauropteryx prima. Creationist publications advised readers to be skeptical and keep an open mind. They were vindicated when four leading paleontologists, including Yale University's John Ostrom, later found that the ‘feathers’ were just a parallel array of fibres, probably collagen.

Another famous alleged dino-bird link was Mononykus, claimed to be a ‘flightless bird.’ The cover of Time magazine even illustrated it with feathers, although not the slightest trace of feathers had been found. Later evidence indicated that ‘Mononykus was clearly not a bird … it clearly was a fleet-footed fossorial digging theropod.’

No good evidence exists that fossilized structures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are the earliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all, a renowned www.sciencedaily.com...




Then we have this story about your neanderthals

It appeared to be one of archaeology's most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old - and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.

This, at least, is what Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten - a distinguished, cigar-smoking German anthropologist - told his scientific colleagues, to global acclaim, after being invited to date the extremely rare skull.

However, the professor's 30-year-old academic career has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other "stone age" relics.

Yesterday his university in Frankfurt announced the professor had been forced to retire because of numerous "falsehoods and manipulations". According to experts, his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten.

"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax

www.guardian.co.uk...
.


The story that birds and mammals evolved from reptiles to be true, there ought to have been numerous “intermediary species” linking one living species to another. For instance, if reptiles truly had evolved into birds, then countless half-bird half-reptile creatures ought to have lived at one time or another. And these intermediary creatures ought to have incomplete, half developed organs.

This too has never been seen and many frankensteinien attempts to create a fraudulent proof have of such evidence have also been exposed and thankfully. In fact NO science has been so shrouded in deliberate secrecy and found to be so unethical so desperate to the point of being downright pathetic in the way they conduct themselves can be seen as nothing less then the frequent acts of con artists and charlatans.

You don't see this coming from the pure sciences like Mathematics or Calculus or Physics or Chemistry where curiously a horde of Atheists would be coming in defending it as a religion or integral mechanism for the advancement of Atheism because they simply weren't created to be atheistic and evolution most certainly was.

Then we have other very "desperate" tactics used by this area of science such as " PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM? " they have accepted that the fossil record didn't give them the support they needed so they invented another model and found one. ...When you haven't got the evidence, they make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence.

When that doesn't work they manufacture the evidence, when they get caught time and time again, they make excuses such as science correcting itself pffft when this isn't that at all this is Science screaming to be investigated for more of the same and ya know Ill tell you why at the end of this post.

What is even more compelling is what you are attempting to do in this argument which again I will say is either you assuming I am some idiot that can't see the tom foolery of your questions OR my post, pointing it out, went right over your head and you are thinking it is clever to ask it again in which case I must expose the utter ridiculousness of this choice of tactics and you, for using it.

See Below: where I said:



For instance; suggesting there are no fossils found that disprove evolution - Talin


Then you said:



But there isn't ... Show us where there is ...



Now this and your clever neuro linguistic programming and wordsmithing have been well documented and I have already shown you just how absurd this deception looks to someone who didn't just get off the turnip truck. Here Ill use the same line of questioning to defend something else and perhaps this time you will see how this might insult someones intelligence just a scandalous little bit.


Ready?


"Their has never been a fossil discovered that disproves the existence of the flying spaghetti monster."

You see what I mean?

here let me try it this way

"Their has never been a fossil discovered that disproves the existence of God."

get it now? do you see how this tactic used by Dave and others makes someones blood boil it is so insulting to use when used in addition to such an arrogant post especially when it is someone like Dave who talks about evidence, mountains of it galaxies of it all supported by "everyone" who is "anyone" in "science" then never ever ever gives a crumb of references or an iota of proof.

The sad thing is,, he doesn't see how absolutely silly it is then for anyone to take him serious but he is the first one to demand proof for assertions made that he again will use a form letter of re-hashed pre-packaged quips and comebacks to ridicule them not once seriously investigating a single one of them.

I think it best to ignore his posts for the most part because his is a religious zeal tied to a philosophy of atheism and a doctrine of the state religion of evolution. The brainwashed product of today's public school system indoctrinated with a philosophy masquerading as science just like creationists or ID, all three do not belong in Science PERIOD.

Most Professors in the other Sciences have voiced the same opinion about this and they are pretty ticked off about it as they have been trying to attache the themselves to science as the synonymous meaning of evolution. Now as for you Horza, I have seen this same thing done where you attempt to merge the meanings of macro and micro evolution which three months to the day I first saw that argued, was a prediction made evolutionists would attempt to do that very thing next by a Christian underground investigation.

Shortly there after I also got an email from some here warning of that "trick". My first sign of atheists were being told to say and do next was when YOU used that type of forced linguistic equivocation with the member named JPHISH. Jphish I am happy to say, explained why these two words describing two distinct different meanings can not possibly be used to mean the same thing and that too is something evolutionists are having to be forced to do just like the many deceptive meanings of fossils currently being called "transitional forms" when just two years ago their arguments for not having discovered any was how difficult a process of fossilization is.

This science has got more dance steps then a punk rock polka but it sure doesn't have any integrity or credibility and if you think it does, then all I got to say is you're easily impressed and terribly naive.



Please answer this:
Would you believe in evolution if a "missing link" where found???


Yes



Sorry ... I wasn't meaning that you where childish ... I was trying to refer to Creationism as a whole ... I should have pointed this out ... apologies ... but that is the thing TALIN ... every single time that a Creationist argues about Fakes/Frauds, they use the same tired old examples ... because that's all many of them have. And these examples have been shown to be irrelevant, wrong and deceptive.



Well apparently a mix up, no harm done

TALIN, the reason I am bias against Creationists is because the movement uses blatant fallacies, disinformation and, on their web sites, post things like this:



Well I think their is plenty of proof that this is being done by both camps and as i said I am not impressed by any of them and think all of them should be taught in Philosophy NOT Science.

I think that idea is one all can live with and until both can act like mature respectable and civil minded professionals without a cheer leading cult of fan based self proclaimed hobby scientists when they aren't on there atheist web blogs attacking fundies for being so stupid,Then and only then should anyone even think they have the attributes of true Scientists who btw hardly ever use the scientific method like it was some kind of 5 step salad dressing recipe lol.

Now I promised you I would tell you more about haekle and the other neanderthal German Scientists excuse for committing their acts of fraud and ya know what they both said?

"everyone else is doing it" and Ya know what?

I believe em


[edit on 8-10-2008 by TALIN]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TALIN
 


You really have no clue. You wander into a conversation about evolution, spout all kinds of half-baked assertions, completely devoid of evidence, and sit back with a grin on your face.

The evolutionary family tree for all organisms is incredibly intact. A few hoaxes and misidentifications don't debunk the entire theory. In fact, when discovered, the theory is even stronger than before.

This thread is great in one aspect - it allows rational people to unearth the irrational, very quickly.

So please, continue to make stuff up, and see just how far that gets you.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by TALIN
 


You really have no clue. You wander into a conversation about evolution, spout all kinds of half-baked assertions, completely devoid of evidence, and sit back with a grin on your face.

The evolutionary family tree for all organisms is incredibly intact. A few hoaxes and misidentifications don't debunk the entire theory. In fact, when discovered, the theory is even stronger than before.

This thread is great in one aspect - it allows rational people to unearth the irrational, very quickly.

So please, continue to make stuff up, and see just how far that gets you.



See what I mean Horza,,??

I rest my case as Dave proves my point



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   
You don't care what your sources are? What they are about? What the beliefs are of the people who say things that you use to further you're stance?

Now THIS is unprecedented illogical suggestion.

Not all sources are equal. Bias sources are bad and unbiased sources are good. Creationist websites are apologetic in their nature, and hence, biased so their opinions (cos that's all they are) are worth the netspace they occupy.

Afterall, they say that anything that suggests against the "divine word" to be wrong-off the cuff, so they are unable to recognise proof at all.

Science websites are a different order all together because scientists don't mind disagreeing with one another based on research. Take for example the ongoing debate among scientists about the origin of birds. It's also why the standing opinion of the scientific community on current research can shift so unpredictably.

The representation of scientific study and discovery cannot be taken as balanced or accurate from biased and partial sources. That's why there is no evidence of creationism on creationist sites, it is all motivated opinion.

[edit on 10/8/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TALIN
 


Thanks!

Deny ignorance - don't invite it to dinner.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Hiya TALIN,

For obvious reasons Creationist like to paint the Theory of Evolution as a Atheist conspiracy or fraud.

If all scientists where atheist then maybe there would be some validity for this claim, however unlikely the chance of millions of individuals, over many decades, keeping such a secret.

But the reality is that 40% of scientists believe in a Creator!
source

And these same believers also agree that the evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly compelling.

It really comes down to this.

95% of all scientists (including the 40% that believe in God) agree that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. 95%!!!

If that figure where only 50% os even 65% then the scientific community in general, would have and would still be giving serious consideration to the validity of the evidence being presented.

If there was serious doubt as too the validity of the evidence then it simply would not be accepted, especially, I would assume, by those 40% of scientists who believe in God.

But they do.

So I ask you ... does this not make you stop and think.

If these people, people like you, who have found their truth in God and Jesus, agree that the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming, then doesn't that show that there might just be something to this stuff after all??

Forget scientists like Dawkins and members like Dave ... their own opinions about a creator has no bearing on the validity of evolution ... in fact Atheists like Dawkins (and I use a capital A on purpose) are a minority ... only 45% of scientists say they do not believe.

Evolution, nay, science for that matter, does not try to explain away God or a Creator. They only try to explain how the universe in which we exist works.

Atheism tries to explain away God ... but Atheism is a philosophy ... not a science ... and science has no need for Atheism.

Science/Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.

If your definitive view of the world is this:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Then no amount of evidence, intellectual debate or personal investigation can convince you otherwise.

But if it is not ... if there is space for interpretation, then why not consider the 40% of scientists who believe in God and evolution as a peer review of evolution by your very own peers?

You said that if there where evidence for a "missing link" then you would believe in evolution.

Would you consider the acceptance of so many of your peers as evidence?


Edit - it needed it



[edit on 9/10/08 by Horza]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I am an atheist.
I do not believe in evolution; And certainly not in majical creation.

Exactly why would an ape evolve into a human?
What advantage would this give him?
We are not an improvement.
We are a much weaker species.
What advantage is there to losing muscular strength?

If you think we are an improvement, explain.

Also we are so great, tell me why all apes did not evolve.

The reference to a lion being so different from a jaguar makes no sense.
They are very much alike, except in size and color pattern.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


You forget that the animals of our ancient ancestor species didn't huddle up and decide that they were going to evolve and what they were going to evolve into. You can't will evolution (exception - eugenics). We evolved into our current specific form by chance. It started with bipedalism, which gave the ape the ability to spot predators over the high grass, then came tool use, then came bigger brains, then simple societies, then language, then art, then agriculture, then civilisation.

Because we are the only species on the planet that are so intelligent, it must have been extremely rare circumstances that produced us.

Those same circumstances also forced our ancestor to evolve in separate directions also. This is called divergent evolution.

The other apes have evolved just as much. Just because they aren't as intelligent and big brained as us doesn't mean that they haven't evolved. And even if they haven't evolved much, that still doesn't mean anything. Afterall, the crocodile has remained relatively unchanged since long before even the dinosuars. It's a real living fossil. - There isn't a constant rate of evolution that all things must adhere to.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
I am an atheist.
I do not believe in evolution; And certainly not in majical creation.



Interesting ...

What is your theory on the origin of species?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 


One day 4 men and 4 women just showed up on earth. After performing a magical ritual, they were able to live 1000 years producing generations of viable offspring. The were named Chad and Melinda. Everyone comes from them.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Oh dear. I think you should find who ever taught you science in school and give them a slap upside the head with a decent-sized haddock. Clearly they dropped the ball on that one.

All animals, including us, are suited to our environments. Humans are better than other apes at bipedal locomotion, which we have honed into a method of moving around using very little energy. We can walk further than nearly any other animal on the planet. If we can track them, it doesn't matter how quickly they run away from us, or how easily they could snap us like a twig, we can keep on them until they collapse from exhaustion.

But really you should be learning the answers to the questions you ask on your own, as it's not our job to educate people.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
But really you should be learning the answers to the questions you ask on your own, as it's not our job to educate people.


...But some people on ATS pretty much make us teach them, not naming names *ahem* HOLLYWOOD11.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Did anyone ever get around to posting any evidence of an opposing theory that is infallable save on missing link?

Has anyone posted any evidence of any opposing theory in any way at all?



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


Nope. Because there isn't an opposing scientific theory, only hypotheses.

Still, I await these other theories, should they ever materialise.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


Nope. Because there isn't an opposing scientific theory, only hypotheses.

Still, I await these other theories, should they ever materialise.


I keep asking. I have not gotten one. Even the creationsist get pretty quiet about this question. I cannot imagine why, they have a story don't they? Are evolutionists the only people that have a theory.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join