hafilax Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 oh hey, look, a transitional fossil! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 (edited) Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils. Where are they? no, actually they'd say that a new species coudl well emerge in just a few hundred years, which is virtually no time at all in the fossil record, and could therefore by easily missed  again, you're missing the point, the existence of evolution has zero to do w/ the existence of god - darwin believed in god and contemplated a life in the ministry prior to becoming a naturalist - einstein was no atheist. if there is a creator-god, clearly the numerous laws of science (thermondynamics, gravity, light, evolution, etc) were part of that creation...  The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world  of course I beleive created law and order to his creation. Edited December 21, 2007 by Seahawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noliquidity Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 In a universe where entropy seems to be the underlying rule, chaos theory at times seems to imply a degree of organization emerging from disorder. This organizing force then goes onto drown 200-300 thousand peole in a tsunami. A god of peace love and understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils. Where are they? no, actually they'd say that a new species coudl well emerge in just a few hundred years, which is virtually no time at all in the fossil record, and could therefore by easily missed  again, you're missing the point, the existence of evolution has zero to do w/ the existence of god - darwin believed in god and contemplated a life in the ministry prior to becoming a naturalist - einstein was no atheist. if there is a creator-god, clearly the numerous laws of science (thermondynamics, gravity, light, evolution, etc) were part of that creation...  The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world  of course I beleive created law and order to his creation.  SH...despite the fact that we are on the same team, I'd caution you to appropriately cite the sources from which you are cutting and pasting. Four lines with no spelling errors is a smoking gun if I ever saw one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 (edited) oh hey, look, a transitional fossil!  The skeleton is incomplete, with critical parts missing. It is also highly fragmented. To establish hind leg function it is necessary to have the pelvic girdle to demonstrate that the leg bones (femur and small proximal piece of tibia) belong to the rest of the skeleton and to determine muscle attachments. The pelvic girdle is missing!  With the forelimbs, the humerus and scapula are missing which are again crucial to interpreting function, as well as establishing connectedness to the skeleton.  Furthermore, this one caudal vertebra was not even found with the rest of the skeleton, being ‘referred material’, found 5 metres above. In other words, the whole of the lumbar, pelvic and caudal parts of Ambulocetus were ‘constructed’ from just one lumbar vertebra, one femur, a small piece of tibia (no fibula, no pelvis), a small piece of the ball of the ankle joint and a few foot and toe bones. And yet a detailed description is given of how the animal moved in water and on land!  Edited December 21, 2007 by Seahawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils. Where are they? no, actually they'd say that a new species coudl well emerge in just a few hundred years, which is virtually no time at all in the fossil record, and could therefore by easily missed  again, you're missing the point, the existence of evolution has zero to do w/ the existence of god - darwin believed in god and contemplated a life in the ministry prior to becoming a naturalist - einstein was no atheist. if there is a creator-god, clearly the numerous laws of science (thermondynamics, gravity, light, evolution, etc) were part of that creation...  The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world  of course I beleive created law and order to his creation.  SH...despite the fact that we are on the same team, I'd caution you to appropriately cite the sources from which you are cutting and pasting. Four lines with no spelling errors is a smoking gun if I ever saw one.  That was my point before, you think he getting any of his points himself. No way. Does he ever list his sources? Never. Then he will dismiss the discussion when he can't answer something becuase something not sourced. Well boo hoo. He gets the fricking idea. answer the question. Where are these transitional fossils? There are none. Big huge smoking gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 the entire fossil record is "transitional". you are merely either too argumentative, or too stupid, to observe this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfinley Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 The skeleton is incomplete, with critical parts missing. It is also highly fragmented. To establish hind leg function it is necessary to have the pelvic girdle to demonstrate that the leg bones (femur and small proximal piece of tibia) belong to the rest of the skeleton and to determine muscle attachments. The pelvic girdle is missing!... Â Answersingenesis.org? Is this what they tell you to turn to when the questions get tough? http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 the entire fossil record is "transitional". you are merely either too argumentative, or too stupid, to observe this. Â LOL even evolutionist agree on this, your not very smart. They will not even argue this fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 oh hey, look, a transitional fossil!  The skeleton is incomplete, with critical parts missing. It is also highly fragmented. To establish hind leg function it is necessary to have the pelvic girdle to demonstrate that the leg bones (femur and small proximal piece of tibia) belong to the rest of the skeleton and to determine muscle attachments. The pelvic girdle is missing!  With the forelimbs, the humerus and scapula are missing which are again crucial to interpreting function, as well as establishing connectedness to the skeleton.  Furthermore, this one caudal vertebra was not even found with the rest of the skeleton, being ‘referred material’, found 5 metres above. In other words, the whole of the lumbar, pelvic and caudal parts of Ambulocetus were ‘constructed’ from just one lumbar vertebra, one femur, a small piece of tibia (no fibula, no pelvis), a small piece of the ball of the ankle joint and a few foot and toe bones. And yet a detailed description is given of how the animal moved in water and on land!  Guess what dumbass it isn't even Ambulocetus that we are discussing. You cut and pasted some Bible-thumper's argument about an entirely different fossil. Nice argument, sorry it's irrelevant though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 The skeleton is incomplete, with critical parts missing. It is also highly fragmented. To establish hind leg function it is necessary to have the pelvic girdle to demonstrate that the leg bones (femur and small proximal piece of tibia) belong to the rest of the skeleton and to determine muscle attachments. The pelvic girdle is missing!...  Answersingenesis.org? Is this what they tell you to turn to when the questions get tough? http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp  Well didn't he look up Transitional fossil and came up with some whale that they don't even know what it is and tell me it the missing link??? Just like the Nebraska man. Evolutionist making up shit to crasp at straws.  The transitional Fossil record is void and that is all he can come up with some incomplete fossil. LOL joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 (edited) Changing the argument. Always the case here. Â The question has not changed, Where are the tranitional fossils??? Maybe those fricking aliens came down and took them. Â Hell there should be millions of them everywhere. Edited December 21, 2007 by Seahawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 You couldn't even get the right fossil Seahawks. Boy are you dumb. I mean I knew you were dumb but when you rebut an apple while I'm talking about oranges, oh boy, then you just fucked up big time. I guess many of the words in the article were too long for you to read huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 No matter what anyone here says or believes, the 20,320 foot peak in Alaska is still referred to as Mt McKinley on all USGS maps. Cartographers say it. I believe it. That settles it. Â Apparently even that is subjective. Just last week I met someone who told me he had climbed a 14K peak in AK called Mt. McKinley that is a completely different peak than the "Denali" referenced in this thread. Â I sort of didn't know how to respond to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 (edited) You couldn't even get the right fossil Seahawks. Boy are you dumb. I mean I knew you were dumb but when you rebut an apple while I'm talking about oranges, oh boy, then you just fucked up big time. I guess many of the words in the article were too long for you to read huh? Â I see you can't answer. You have no answer. So I expected this. You all do the same thing everytime. When it gets tough you bail. Â So get that petri dish out and let see if you can create life. Oh and never look anything up on the interenet or your an idiot. LOL Edited December 21, 2007 by Seahawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Please look up Miller/Urey Experiment. Arrive at your own conclusions. It seems pretty obvious to me, but I will not provide any additional aid or comfort to the assortment of douche bags arguing the correct, pro-evolution side of this argument here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 (edited) oh hey, look, a transitional fossil!  The skeleton is incomplete, with critical parts missing. It is also highly fragmented. To establish hind leg function it is necessary to have the pelvic girdle to demonstrate that the leg bones (femur and small proximal piece of tibia) belong to the rest of the skeleton and to determine muscle attachments. The pelvic girdle is missing!  With the forelimbs, the humerus and scapula are missing which are again crucial to interpreting function, as well as establishing connectedness to the skeleton.  Furthermore, this one caudal vertebra was not even found with the rest of the skeleton, being ‘referred material’, found 5 metres above. In other words, the whole of the lumbar, pelvic and caudal parts of Ambulocetus were ‘constructed’ from just one lumbar vertebra, one femur, a small piece of tibia (no fibula, no pelvis), a small piece of the ball of the ankle joint and a few foot and toe bones. And yet a detailed description is given of how the animal moved in water and on land!  Guess what dumbass it isn't even Ambulocetus that we are discussing. You cut and pasted some Bible-thumper's argument about an entirely different fossil. Nice argument, sorry it's irrelevant though!  And I'm going to beleive some made up shit from and evolutionist? This is just like the Nebraska man. You do the same shit. Hey but if an evolutionist says it, its got to be true. How blind and how stupid even with your argument.  And you dumb fuck it the same thing. Last time I checked it was about the walking whale.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus  and this incomplete thing from a quick look is in dispute on both sides.  "The Ambulocetus fossil was found in ‘lower to middle Eocene’ beds. Fossils of whales of the suborder Archeoceti have been found in lower Eocene strata,4 so Ambulocetus is unlikely to be an ancestor of modern whales, as claimed by Thewissen et al." Edited December 21, 2007 by Seahawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 [And I'm going to beleive some made up shit from and evolutionist? This is just like the Nebraska man. You do the same shit. Hey but if an evolutionist says it, its got to be true. How blind and how stupid even with your argument. Â so i heard that the peeps who witnessed jesus rise from the dead just made that shit up. Â Should I stop believing in Jesus just because of that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 only douglas adams could bring the appropriate end to this thread, but jesus reached down and took him away from us - bastard!!! Â "sorry for the inconvenience" - god Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 [And I'm going to beleive some made up shit from and evolutionist? This is just like the Nebraska man. You do the same shit. Hey but if an evolutionist says it, its got to be true. How blind and how stupid even with your argument. Â so i heard that the peeps who witnessed jesus rise from the dead just made that shit up. Â Should I stop believing in Jesus just because of that? Â Maybe you can convince Saul who changed his name to Paul who was killing christian becuase he beleived the same thing, that this shit was made up. Funny thing is Jesus appeared to him. He stop killing christian wrote multiple books in the bible and hung upside down. Now maybe you tell him who killing christian that became one of the ones killed that the shit was made up. He was pretty convinced it wasn't made up. But hey you believe what you want. You have free will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Â Maybe you can convince Saul who changed his name to Paul who was killing christian becuase he beleived the same thing, that this shit was made up. Funny thing is Jesus appeared to him. He stop killing christian wrote multiple books in the bible and hung upside down. Now maybe you tell him who killing christian that became one of the ones killed that the shit was made up. He was pretty convinced it wasn't made up. and that right there is why, if god exists, he is a bit of a twit - why the fuck does saul get the personal jesus visit?!? waht's the point of keeping the rest of us heathens in the dark? for chrissakes, i'm a hedonistic fuck, and i know full well the powers of mental-illness to create illusions and fantasies, but if the Big Guy in the Bathrobe came down from the clouds w/ a plethora of big-bootie-bitches and waved his 16 inches around in my face while solving a rubix-cube in 1 second w/ his feet, i'm sure i'd be changing my tune damn quick too (probably even tvash too, though jaycee might need a big double-d rack to go w/ the long-schlong for full convincing). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 I would urge any Christians still posting to this thread to consider the possibility that the only reason they are doing so is their own sinful pride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 (edited) Â Maybe you can convince Saul who changed his name to Paul who was killing christian becuase he beleived the same thing, that this shit was made up. Funny thing is Jesus appeared to him. He stop killing christian wrote multiple books in the bible and hung upside down. Now maybe you tell him who killing christian that became one of the ones killed that the shit was made up. He was pretty convinced it wasn't made up. and that right there is why, if god exists, he is a bit of a twit - why the fuck does saul get the personal jesus visit?!? waht's the point of keeping the rest of us heathens in the dark? for chrissakes, i'm a hedonistic fuck, and i know full well the powers of mental-illness to create illusions and fantasies, but if the Big Guy in the Bathrobe came down from the clouds w/ a plethora of big-bootie-bitches and waved his 16 inches around in my face while solving a rubix-cube in 1 second w/ his feet, i'm sure i'd be changing my tune damn quick too (probably even tvash too, though jaycee might need a big double-d rack to go w/ the long-schlong for full convincing). Â I hear ya. I probably change alot of the crap I do also. Its a very excellent question. Something I ponder alot too. In the bible there a story about a man I beleive in hell and he cries out to let God send him back so he can convince his brother not to end up where he is. God says to him I sent my own son and they didn't believe it. I believe God feel he given us enough. His next return will not come to die for mankind but as a conquerer and judge. Also by showing himself to you would that not be a kind of way to force you to obey him, of course it would and you just stated you would change. He wants you to love of free will not being forced in anyway. Enough evidence exist to make a choice. Â My thought. Â Jesus words before he died. Luke 16:31 NIV) "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' Â Ever hear of the term doubting Thomas? Well thomas one of Jesus disiples who saw him die would not believe that he was risen. He told the others that he would not beleive unless he put his hands on Jesus. Thomas words on seeing the resurrected Christ. Â (John 20:27-29 NIV) Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Â Edited December 21, 2007 by Seahawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.