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.
Originally posted by WfknSmth
edit: dang you guys write fast i swear when i started to write my reply your posts werent there yet
Originally posted by edmc^2
ANyway, I find this fascinating, how come whenever 'people who believed in evolution theory' quotes something or provides a video link from someone - 'who believes in the evolution theory' and is a proponent of the evolution theory, 'people who believe in the evolution theory' assumes right away that the person being quoted who is a
believer of evolution theory - is accepted as THE AUTHORITY - like a god?
Yet when I quote from an authority like Sir Isaac Newton - right away I get told that:
sup with that? - me thinks, that 'people who believe in the evolution theory' have a very weak platfom and foundation so they can't allow any opposing POV especially an "Argument from authority".
And if not succesful - destroy the messenger by portraying him/her as a:
"mentally unstable, socially maladapt and aggressive, and keen on alchemy and lots of other mumbo-jumbo besides" -- msAsty
Why is that?
note:
sorry for the long description describing "people who believe in evolution". I was told not to use the term 'evolutionist' as it is (I guess) offensive to 'people who believe in evolution'
“Definition of an Argument from Authority:
1. Person A claims that P
2. Person A is a respected scientist or authority.
3. Therefore, P is true. “
“It would require much exotic calculation, however, to deny that the single most powerful figure—not merely in these two millenniums but in all human history—has been Jesus of Nazareth.”—Reynolds Price, American writer and Bible scholar.
“A man who was completely innocent offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.”—Mohandas K. Gandhi, political and spiritual leader of India.
“As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”—Albert Einstein, German-born scientist.
“Jesus Christ, to me, is the outstanding personality of all time, all history, both as Son of God and as Son of Man. Everything He ever said or did has value for us today, and that is something you can say of no other man, alive or dead.”—Sholem Asch, Polish-born essayist as quoted in Christian Herald.
“For thirty five years of my life I was, in the proper acceptation of the word, nihilist, a man who believed in nothing. Five years ago my faith came to me. I believed in the doctrine of Jesus Christ and my whole life underwent a sudden transformation.”—Count Leo Tolstoy, Russian novelist and philosopher.
“[Jesus’] life is the most influential ever lived on this planet and its effect continues to mount.”—Kenneth Scott Latourette, American historian and author.
“Shall we suppose the evangelic history a mere fiction? Indeed, my friend, it bears not the marks of fiction. On the contrary, the history of Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ.”—Jean-Jacques Rousseau, French philosopher.
“No major contention of Scripture has been proved unhistorical.”
“Whenever there is sufficient documentary evidence to make an investigation, the statements of the Bible in the original text have stood the test. . . . The chronological and geographical statements are more accurate and reliable than those afforded by any other ancient documents.”
The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out:
“Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.
"The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth.”-- The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 23.
“The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. . . . After their origins, most species undergo little evolution before becoming extinct.” p. xv
“The internal anatomy of these creatures is remarkably similar to what you find in flies today. The wings and legs and head, and even the cells inside, are very modern-looking.” - The New York Times, “Prehistoric Gnat,” October 3, 1982, Section 1, p. 49
“no empirical evidence support the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction” How Life Began - Evolution's Three Genesis, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008 pp. 30, 33, 45.
“Some writers have presumed that all life's building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller- type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.” Scientific American - “A Simpler Origin for Life by Robert Shapiro, June 2007 p 48.
And an 'argument from authority' is a known logical fallacy. It's not a proof of anything. We tend to provide evidence not opinions from authorities.
“Evolution of Elephants”:
Obviously, there came a point at which these absurdly mutated teeth had become useless for feeding, which forced them to use their already-flexible noses to rake and trowel food into their mouths the same way modern elephants still do today. Initially, both the top and bottom incisors grew out as well as the lower jaw. I will use this Deinotherium to represent the point at which that trend came to an end, when the lower jaw sort of "dropped off" so to speak, leaving one now-very-long nose, which was out there by itself as it is on modern elephants...
“Solenodonsaurus janenschi is a transitional species between basal anthracosaurs and their apparently non-amphibious descendants. Known from a single, incomplete fossil, it shows loss of the lateral line on the head, which was present in amphibians, but still has the single sacral vertebra of the amphibian. Two other specimens known from the early Pennsylvanian period, (Hylonomus and Paleothyris) also show the sort of half-amphibian / half-reptile features which anti-evolutionists keep saying could not exist.
Known from a single, incomplete fossil,
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by WfknSmth
So per msKailassa, if I quote an “ Argument from authority" it “is an illogical approach to debate".
Because according profSmth the:
“Definition of an Argument from Authority:
1. Person A claims that P
2. Person A is a respected scientist or authority.
3. Therefore, P is true. “
Anymore rules that I need to be aware of profSmth?
BTW, who established these rules anyway? Is this a universal rule that MUST be followed in order to consider a statement or a quote valid?
So if I say that Jesus was not only a real person but the greatest man who ever lived based on statements made by historians, scientists, scholars, writers, political leaders, and others — past and present, their statements are invalid per you and msKailassa's rules, correct?
Thus whatever they said/say about that same person, that is, the man from Nazareth, Jesus Christ is invalid. Correct?
That is:
“It would require much exotic calculation, however, to deny that the single most powerful figure—not merely in these two millenniums but in all human history—has been Jesus of Nazareth.”—Reynolds Price, American writer and Bible scholar.
“A man who was completely innocent offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.”—Mohandas K. Gandhi, political and spiritual leader of India.
“As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”—Albert Einstein, German-born scientist.
“Jesus Christ, to me, is the outstanding personality of all time, all history, both as Son of God and as Son of Man. Everything He ever said or did has value for us today, and that is something you can say of no other man, alive or dead.”—Sholem Asch, Polish-born essayist as quoted in Christian Herald.
“For thirty five years of my life I was, in the proper acceptation of the word, nihilist, a man who believed in nothing. Five years ago my faith came to me. I believed in the doctrine of Jesus Christ and my whole life underwent a sudden transformation.”—Count Leo Tolstoy, Russian novelist and philosopher.
“[Jesus’] life is the most influential ever lived on this planet and its effect continues to mount.”—Kenneth Scott Latourette, American historian and author.
“Shall we suppose the evangelic history a mere fiction? Indeed, my friend, it bears not the marks of fiction. On the contrary, the history of Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ.”—Jean-Jacques Rousseau, French philosopher.
As for the accuracy of the Bible, noted archaeologist, W. F. Albright, wrote in his book Archaeology and Israel:
“No major contention of Scripture has been proved unhistorical.”
In the years since his death, Albright's methods and conclusions have been increasingly questioned. William Dever notes that "[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer "secular" archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not "Biblical archaeology."[9]
Thomas L. Thompson strongly criticises his methods: "[Wright and Albright's] historical interpretation can make no claim to be objective, proceeding as it does from a methodology which distorts its data by selectivity which is hardly representative, which ignores the enormous lack of data for the history of the early second millennium, and which wilfully establishes hypotheses on the basis of unexamined biblical texts, to be proven by such (for this period) meaningless mathematical criteria as the 'balance of probability' ..."[10]
As to small details such as chronological and geographical statements in the Bible, Professor R. D. Wilson writes in A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament:
“Whenever there is sufficient documentary evidence to make an investigation, the statements of the Bible in the original text have stood the test. . . . The chronological and geographical statements are more accurate and reliable than those afforded by any other ancient documents.”
So none of these well recognized persons is a valid authority on the authenticity of Jesus Christ or the Bible per your rules, correct profSmth?
Or what about these authorities who questioned the truthfulness of the "evolution theory"? Do you also invalidate them according to you or msKailassa's rules?
Quote:
The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out:
“Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.
"The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth.”-- The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 23.
From The New Evolutionary Timetable:
“The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. . . . After their origins, most species undergo little evolution before becoming extinct.” p. xv
We seem forced to conclude that most evolution takes place rapidly
Regarding the finding of a fossil fly that was labeled “40 million years old,” Dr. George Poinar, Jr., said:
“The internal anatomy of these creatures is remarkably similar to what you find in flies today. The wings and legs and head, and even the cells inside, are very modern-looking.” - The New York Times, “Prehistoric Gnat,” October 3, 1982, Section 1, p. 49
Or the origin of life:
In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years
“no empirical evidence support the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction” How Life Began - Evolution's Three Genesis, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008 pp. 30, 33, 45.
rofesseur Meinesz contacted by email 24/08/2010 5:31 pm (French Hour)
* Did you authorize the Watchtower to make reference to your book ? Of course, not !
* Do you support the creationist view of JW ? Absolutly not !
* Is this quote correct? They’re making reference to my book on page 32 to 60 but this is not what I wrote. The sentence they are mentioning appears on page 47 but taken out of its context. They made an amalgam starting on a discussion where I examined 2 possibilities of life rising up on earth : (cells coming from space or cells formating on earth) and I develop my opinion supported by numerous current datas (for me there is no evidence that it happened on earth so it's the other hypothesis (life began elsewhere) which should be considered as well as the other hypothesis. That's it !
On the contrary, I'm opposed to creationists but also to the ID movement (several paragraps on the subject). I am very clear in my book and a chapter underlines the contingency factor in all the process of evolution (with pictures to support on page 186 !).
They’re promoting my book in their publications but if Jehovah's followers will read it, they will be very very disappointed !
Please be aware that my book is a very serious work very well documented (nearly 1000 references) and it passed through the filter of 8 referees before being edited in USA (University of Chicago Press !)
So you are authorized to publish my words!
What would you advise me to do to counterfact those lies? I'm ready to sue them ! Therefore I would need their brochures and documents in order to prove through the huge publication of their craps, the damage caused to my reputation
A. Meinesz
-- Professeur Alexandre MEINESZ
With regards to the Miller-Urey experiment, Robert Shapiro from New York University says:
“Some writers have presumed that all life's building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller- type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.” Scientific American - “A Simpler Origin for Life by Robert Shapiro, June 2007 p 48.
The opposing model of abiogenesis, the ‘metabolism first’ idea, attempts to avoid complicated RNA formation and polymerization and instead focuses on energy production. A prominent advocate of this theory is Robert Shapiro of New York University. .He is also a vocal critic of ‘genes first’. In this capacity, TOL exploits his quotes to attempt to tear down ‘genes first’ while failing to explain the model he does support. In ‘metabolism first’, a particular mineral like iron disulfide catalyzes certain key biochemical reactions. This mineral is commonly found in deep sea vents. These vents also release gases that can be broken down by certain chemical processes to release energy. The metabolism of these gases produces organic compounds that could serve to further increase the efficiency of the original reaction. A possible clue to this ancient process is the presence of iron sulfide in several important enzymes used in cells today. From there, a cell membrane can be formed in a similar manner to that mentioned above. The introduction of RNA and genetic replication happens at a later stage after metabolizing units with a vesicle exist. This last step may end up including ideas from the competing ‘genes first’ hypothesis. Advocates of this model claim that the development of catalytic networks is a simpler and more robust starting point then genetic material. Ongoing research will surely throw light on this topic.
The conclusion of the article ends:
The small-molecule alternative, however, is in harmony with the views of biologist Stuart Kauffman: “If this is all true, life is vastly more probable than we have supposed. Not only are we at home in the universe, but we are far more likely to share it with as yet unknown companions.”
Source: Scientific American, "A Simpler Origin Tor Life." by Robert Shapiro. June 2007. p. 47-53
Are they also invalid authority on the subject per your rules?
Or as madness put it:
And an 'argument from authority' is a known logical fallacy. It's not a proof of anything. We tend to provide evidence not opinions from authorities.
What an interesting way to avoid and face the facts!
Might it be that the foundation of the "evolution theory" is so flimsy that it need rules as way to to eliminate any opposing POV - a view that will centainly make it weak? The uneducated me think so.
Yet when “a proponent of evolution” or “people who believe in evolution theory” quote or state something like the following, it is considered valid, the truth and nothing but the truth. Anyone who disagree is considered ignoramus. Correct?
Note: (I'll just quote one here from the hundreds of imagined statements - based on a very flimsy evidence)
“Evolution of Elephants”:
Obviously, there came a point at which these absurdly mutated teeth had become useless for feeding, which forced them to use their already-flexible noses to rake and trowel food into their mouths the same way modern elephants still do today. Initially, both the top and bottom incisors grew out as well as the lower jaw. I will use this Deinotherium to represent the point at which that trend came to an end, when the lower jaw sort of "dropped off" so to speak, leaving one now-very-long nose, which was out there by itself as it is on modern elephants...
“Solenodonsaurus janenschi is a transitional species between basal anthracosaurs and their apparently non-amphibious descendants. Known from a single, incomplete fossil, it shows loss of the lateral line on the head, which was present in amphibians, but still has the single sacral vertebra of the amphibian. Two other specimens known from the early Pennsylvanian period, (Hylonomus and Paleothyris) also show the sort of half-amphibian / half-reptile features which anti-evolutionists keep saying could not exist.
Here's a picture of the “proponent of evolution” was talking about.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a887bc4414c4.jpg[/atsimg]
So the quote above and artwork are factual according to you, correct?
Btw, do you know where the “proponents of evolution” based their conclusions that the ancestors of elephants looked liked the figure shown above? Scientific facts or plane imagination?
And who verified it? Was is verified by a neutral scientific community or verified, approved and peer reviewed by (sorry to use this term - getting tired of the long description) “evolutionist”? Renowned scientist who is also a “proponent of evolution theory”?
(tip: next thread)
But more importantly do you really believed that modern elephants “evolved” that way? Based on what? Based on this evidence?
Known from a single, incomplete fossil,
In addition, we know for a fact that the “people who believe in evolution theory” or those whom you claim to be 'authority' on evolution theory were not present when this purported “evolution” happened.
So where then did they based their entire evolution theory?
Darwin's findings?
Fossil records?
If so, again how solid are these purported evidence? Are they 100% trustworthy? That is, what they said really happened, unfalsifiable, infallible?
If not, on what basis then is your belief founded on? Their statements? Really the “evolution theory” when it's studied with an open eye boils down to no other than based on “FAITH” on the words imperfect men.
But of course since “evolutionist A” was confirmed by “evolutionists B” then “evolutionists B” must be true. After all they are both “evolutionists”. Right?
1) I find nothing wrong with “Newton was a 'gravitist' and Einstein a 'reltavist'.
since one defined/formulated a precise mathematical description of the universal law (gravity) and the other discovered that gravity not only shapes the universe but also governs the way we see and measure it - why gravity even affects the way time is measured (relativity).
btw:
2) If “evolutionists” seems “stupid” to you then what is the correct description for ““people who believe in evolution theory”.
Meriam-Webster Dictionary:
Evolutionist = a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution.
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by WfknSmth
So per msKailassa, if I quote an “ Argument from authority" it “is an illogical approach to debate".
Because according profSmth the:
“Definition of an Argument from Authority:
1. Person A claims that P
2. Person A is a respected scientist or authority.
3. Therefore, P is true. “
Anymore rules that I need to be aware of profSmth?
BTW, who established these rules anyway? Is this a universal rule that MUST be followed in order to consider a statement or a quote valid?
So if I say that Jesus was not only a real person but the greatest man who ever lived based on statements made by historians, scientists, scholars, writers, political leaders, and others — past and present, their statements are invalid per you and msKailassa's rules, correct?
“It would require much exotic calculation, however, to deny that the single most powerful figure—not merely in these two millenniums but in all human history—has been Jesus of Nazareth.”—Reynolds Price, American writer and Bible scholar.
Originally posted by edmc^2
[qoute]
? Q: how much of a 'fossil' evidence is available to us today since the conception of the evolution theory? Any idea? With the passage of time, surely we should have enuff evidence to silence any doubters.
We are still on this ?
Is elephants good enough ?
locolobo.org...
You have obviously never actually spent 10 minutes to look and see what fossils we have .. have you ?”
On the contrary, there are so many books and websites out there that purported to be authority on the subject (the origins of life). But as soon as you dig into them, you will discover that much of the information are just figments of imagination mostly based on inaccurate data, incorrect hypothesis, pre-conceived ideas and most all incomplete specimens (i.e. fossils).
Here, do you agree with this statement that “one of the interesting things about evolution and paleontology is that its sometimes nearly impossible to tell whether you're looking at two different kinds of animals, or just two different version of the same thing. Because the way evolution works, everything can be described as another version of anything else you want to put next to it.” Agree?
In other words, evolution is very subjective - it all depends on how the “experts” including the ’artist’ interprets the data (fossil record).
Thus any evolutionist can make statements or assumptions like the one quoted below and considered as scientific and ‘very intelligent. Agree?
Here’s a quote on “Evolution of Elephants”:
Obviously, there came a point at which these absurdly mutated teeth had become useless for feeding, which forced them to use their already-flexible noses to rake and trowel food into their mouths the same way modern elephants still do today. Initially, both the top and bottom incisors grew out as well as the lower jaw. I will use this Deinotherium to represent the point at which that trend came to an end, when the lower jaw sort of "dropped off" so to speak, leaving one now-very-long nose, which was out there by itself as it is on modern elephants...
Question:
Is the artist’s conception of the “mother of elephant” shown below based on scientific fact or imagination?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e3b0c0474183.jpg[/atsimg]
What about this one below? Was this one the ancestors of the modern elephant? Is the “artwork” based on complete fossil records or a partial or just on imagination?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a887bc4414c4.jpg[/atsimg]
(hey – this gives me an idea of new thread)
Continuing…
You said:
“You seem like a semi-intelligent person, why not check out a REAL science book or web page. I am sure you will be surprised.”
Well, after going to voluminous statements, dissertation upon dissertations, and pages of assumptions on top of other assumptions. I found this disclaimer:
“This site is an amateur endeavor to promote science, but is not a scientific resource.
Readers interested in further investigation of either biological evolution or the origin of life
are encouraged to visit the University of California at Berkeley's exemplary web-primer.”
Are you aware of this statement nophun? Do you consider this site a good scientific resource since you recommended it as a “REAL science … web page?
BTW, any idea what your fellow evolutionist will do to me if I use information coming from sites that supports Creation? They will enthusiastically say, the information is ‘hogwash’. Why some even complained when I quoted a contradictory statement of a well respected evolutionist’s from the 80’s. I was accused of providing old information as if it’s longer valid. Imagine that!
Anyway, after going thru the sites, I eventually stopped reading because the story line is always the same. I got bored (sorry). But I was hoping that somehow it will reveal something very convincing about evolution and factual some like:
If the evolution theory is founded in facts; the fossil record reveals beginnings of new structures in living things. We found fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs, fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. We also found reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
Fact is, after going thru much of the statements, the fossil records presented are still INCOMPLETE and did not PROVIDE any PROOF OF EVOLUTION (whether Macro or Micro)
Here’s just one evidence of the many statements I found: On the subject of Helicoprion
“In any case, Helicoprion exemplifies some of the difficulties involved in reconstructing ancient creatures from only a few clues.”
Were you aware of this?
www.elasmo-research.org...
Many of the pictures shown in your sites purporting to prove evolution are mostly based on the so-called expert's best guess.
Here’s what the author of one the site said:
“Below is a sculpture I did of Elginerpeton, what I consider to be the real-life animal depicted on all the Darwinfish bumper stickers. I did this piece a few years ago, when I didn't know so much about them. But I had the assistance (via email) of paleoartist, Richard Hammond, and the famous Cambridge professor of vertebrate paleontology, Dr. Jennifer Clack, the world's foremost expert on the fauna of that period. We don't have enough of the skeleton to be certain about the whole shape. But this is one of several contemporary species in this apparent sequence, and they all look about the same. So I've made this one consistent with its siblings. Notice that both dorsal fins and the anal fin are absent from this rendering, as they are on all similar species from this class. And as is typical, the tail fin is not fluked. The first fish with fluked tails lived alongside this one. But their tails are still obviously quite primitive, like a salamander's tail. Most sarcopterygiian fish never had a more fish-like tail than Elginerpeton did.”
Will you say the image of the Darwinfish accurate when “We don't have enough of the skeleton to be certain about the whole shape”?
Cont...
edit: added missing link (pix)
[edit on 28-8-2010 by edmc^2]
The lamnoids (order Lamniformes) include many of the most famous and instantly-recognizable of sharks. The Goblin Shark, Sandtiger, threshers, Megamouth, Basking, and the Great White are all members of this group. From the dim depths of prehistory, these sharks have left a rich fossil record.
As a group, lamnoids are characterized by heavily-built, solid teeth that have proven durable against the onslaught of erosion over geological time. As a result, their ancestors have left many beautiful and highly informative fossil teeth. In addition, the lamnoids have heavily calcified but fragile vertebral centra which are also sometimes preserved. Beyond these structural basics, only a few assorted fossilized bits and pieces survive - some of them squirreled away in private collections, where their true value remains hidden from paleontologists.”
“Solenodonsaurus janenschi is a transitional species between basal anthracosaurs and their apparently non-amphibious descendants. Known from a single, incomplete fossil, it shows loss of the lateral line on the head, which was present in amphibians, but still has the single sacral vertebra of the amphibian. Two other specimens known from the early Pennsylvanian period, (Hylonomus and Paleothyris) also show the sort of half-amphibian / half-reptile features which anti-evolutionists keep saying could not exist.
Haptodus (late Pennsylvanian) -- One of the first known sphenacodonts, had several skeletal features becoming more mammalian, particularly in the teeth, which began to show the first true rooted canines, and not the sort of fangs snakes have. Subsequent species lost the last vestiges of strictly-reptilian bones, and developed the ear drum, another exclusively mammalian trait. Throughout this sequence, we also see an improvement in the ligaments and muscularity to show a steady progression from very primitive lizard-like things to more advanced and adaptive "reptiles" that were also arguably mammals of one sort or another at the same time. In fact, there were several of these which blur the line between reptiles and mammals so much that in some cases, its difficult to state which class these things should belong to. Procynosuchus (latest Permian) the first cynodont, was already a sort of dog-like pseudo-lizard which quickly begat some very lizard-like primitive quasi-mammals, like thrinaxodon. These early Triassic cynodonts had very definite canine teeth and are considered by many to be one of the first mammals, even though they weren't quite complete mammals, and still bore some vaguely-reptilian vestigial traits. These were also among the very few mammal-like semi-reptiles to survive the Permian extinction, an event even more devastating than that which later brought on the demise of the dinosaurs. By the time we get to things like Cynognathus (early Triassic, but suspected to have existed even earlier) we have a nearly complete mammal with just the slightest reptilian traits, like the as-yet undistinguished uniform reptilian-style cheek teeth behind the definitely mammalian canines.
Lagomorphs:
Barunlestes (see above) The possible Asian rodent/lagomorph ancestor.
Mimotoma (Paleocene) -- A rabbit-like animal, similar to Barunlestes, but with a rabbit dental formula, changes in the facial bones, and only one layer of enamel on the incisors (unlike the rodents). Like rabbits, it had two upper incisors, but the second incisor is still large and functional, while in modern rabbits it is tiny. Chuankuei-Li et al. (1987; also see Szalay et al., 1993) think this is the actual ancestor of Mimolagus, next.
Mimolagus (late Eocene) -- Possesses several more lagomorph-like characters, such as a special enamel layer, possible double upper incisors, and large premolars.
Lushilagus (mid-late Eocene) -- First true lagomorph. Teeth very similar to Mimotoma, and modern rabbit & hare teeth could easily have been derived from these teeth.
After this, the first modern rabbits appeared in the Oligocene.
“Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.
Stephen Jay Gould .. Did you know he is a evolutionary biologist?
Yes, he would be talking about the Cambrian explosion, and the point of quoting this would be ... ?
Your creationist website might tell you the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution ... but it does not. ( I am guessing this is your point )
Deducing the events of half a billion years ago is difficult, as evidence comes exclusively from biological and chemical signatures in rocks and very sparse fossils.
It from authority" it “is an illogical approach to debate". BTW, who established these rules anyway? Is this a universal rule that MUST be followed in order to consider a statement or a quote valid?
So if I say that Jesus was not only a real person but the greatest man who ever lived based on statements made by historians, scientists, scholars, writers, political leaders, and others — past and present, their statements are invalid per you and msKailassa's rules, correct?
Thus whatever they said/say about that same person, that is, the man from Nazareth, Jesus Christ is invalid. Correct?
So none of these well recognized persons is a valid authority on the authenticity of Jesus Christ or the Bible per your rules, correct profSmth?
And an 'argument from authority' is a known logical fallacy. It's not a proof of anything. We tend to provide evidence not opinions from authorities.
Might it be that the foundation of the "evolution theory" is so flimsy that it need rules as way to to eliminate any opposing POV - a view that will centainly make it weak? The uneducated me think so.
No such luck. These are the rules of logic, not something specially dreamed up by 'evolutionists'.
Since you admit to being uneducated, these errors of yours are hardly surprising. I suggest you get yourself an education. Then, if you still believe the mumbo-jumbo you believe now (which I doubt you will), come back and we'll have a proper debate.
A proper education would also allow you to make a better guess as to the sex of Astyanax--even if you never get round to reading the Iliad.
posted on 2-12-2010 @ 04:37 AM this post reply to post by edmc^2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you trying to teach me about Newton? An old proverb about grandmothers and sucking eggs springs to mind.
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Astyanax
No such luck. These are the rules of logic, not something specially dreamed up by 'evolutionists'.
you mean logical common sense?
Since you admit to being uneducated, these errors of yours are hardly surprising. I suggest you get yourself an education. Then, if you still believe the mumbo-jumbo you believe now (which I doubt you will), come back and we'll have a proper debate.
Not bad for an “uneducated” third world Asian Christian who speaks three languages and three dialects with simple mind full of common sense huh?
I'm really surprised though, if an “uneducated” third world Asian Christian who speaks three languages and three dialects with simple-mind full of common sense is able to stand his ground against a group of HIGHLY EDUCATED PERFECT ENGLISH speaking folks (prolly a lot older too).
How much more damage I can do if I'm really educated, but........ no thanks for the scriptures said:
“Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing.” – 1 Cor 1:20, 21
.yes, it's an illogical approach. Things aren't true because authorities say them.
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
.yes, it's an illogical approach. Things aren't true because authorities say them.
That`s awesome now my opinion and viewpoints are equal to yours and every other brilliant mind through history and into the present.
Your reasoning is hilariously biased, discount all authoritative quotes and statements by people and literature I disagree with.
Problem is we all do it to some degree, some of us just won`t admit it.
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
.yes, it's an illogical approach. Things aren't true because authorities say them.
That`s awesome now my opinion and viewpoints are equal to yours and every other brilliant mind through history and into the present.
Your reasoning is hilariously biased, discount all authoritative quotes and statements by people and literature I disagree with.
Problem is we all do it to some degree, some of us just won`t admit it.
you mean logical common sense?
Not bad for an “uneducated” third world Asian Christian who speaks three languages and three dialects with simple mind full of common sense huh?
I'm really surprised though, if an “uneducated” third world Asian Christian who speaks three languages, etc., is able to stand his ground against a group of HIGHLY EDUCATED PERFECT ENGLISH speaking folks (prolly a lot older too). How much more damage I can do if I'm really educated, but...
mr Hector's son is a dude then again this person might a grandma – don't wanna get grandma mad
Does sharing an ancestor with the other modern apes hurt your fragile ego?
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Not ignoring ur post madness - just too many to respond to and takes time to do research to make sure I don't mistate something (which just happened a while ago).
Anyway you talked of education. Sadly the education you talked about is stacked against me – no school or university in the world would allow or do a research on the scientific side of Creation.
Thus it’s non-existent.
Reason for it is this one overwhelming and overriding statement: its un-FASIFIABLE. Since it’s un-falsifiable, Creation then is NOT science, thus it CAN NOT be taught in schools (according to the scientific community of course).
On the other hand, since “evolution” is FALSIFIABLE then it must be scientific (according to the scientific community of course).
The irony though, to believe on something falsifiable is ‘a’ foundation of scientific truth
while to believe on something that IS TRUTHFUL is ignorance
(I believe this is what you were trying to show on your threads: “Evolution: Falsify It”
and “The Ignorance of Creationist”). Amazing grace indeed!
But, all is not lost because these same men and women of science whether they are aware of it or not – are confirming what the majority of us - believers of Creation know already, that Life Indeed is a product of a loving and intelligent Creator.
This part “evolutionist” cannot and will never see, even for those who try to inter-mingle the two.
And it is this part that believers of evolution cannot ignore no matter how they try for in the end the Creator of life is the final arbiter. That I’m sure of!
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
.yes, it's an illogical approach. Things aren't true because authorities say them.
That`s awesome now my opinion and viewpoints are equal to yours and every other brilliant mind through history and into the present.
Your reasoning is hilariously biased, discount all authoritative quotes and statements by people and literature I disagree with.
Problem is we all do it to some degree, some of us just won`t admit it.