Author Topic: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.  (Read 5564 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #58 on: December 31, 2011, 10:10:25 PM »
consider the source.

I did and you didn't even deserve this reply.
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #59 on: December 31, 2011, 10:10:58 PM »
The bible is real, I have one sitting right here on my desk. Does this mean I win?

A great quote!

I think someone got hit in the head with a Thompson's Chain Reference Bible one to many times!
« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 10:21:05 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6457
  • Darwins +768/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #60 on: December 31, 2011, 10:17:17 PM »
consider the source.

I did and you didn't even deserve this reply.

Ah, but I was serious. You display no understanding of evolution yet you are judging it. Rather harshly. Were you to judge it while displaying some level of knowledge on the subject, I might be a little more civil. But if you can't trouble yourself to at least understand the opposition, then I have little reason to utilize my Mr. Wonderful powers.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2738
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #61 on: December 31, 2011, 10:44:38 PM »
Just using rat-to-bat example, if that were true, did a rat just sprout full wings and know how to instinctively fly?  Because if not, think about how awkward it would be to be a rat who kind of has front legs but they are kind of evolving into wings.  It would have a hard time running around on the ground and feeding itself.  Yep, if evolution were true, we probably wouldn't have bats or rats, because the transition would have made the rats easy pickin's for predators and they would have become the food of choice because they couldn't run as fast as they could because of those transitioning front legs/wings.  And just how many would have had to been born at one time with the transitional features in order to assure that those transitions were passed on to the next generation? 

Next time you research evolution, don't tune in to Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron and their silly crocoduck ideas.  Read an actual science book.  Listen to actual scientists.  If you're going to argue against evolution, at least know what it is you're talking about.  You've just dismissed a strawman's version; nothing more.


Quote
There's just to many problems with this for me to have enough faith to believe in evolution.

This always struck me as a funny retort.  Isn't the whole idea of religion that you have faith in your god?  The more faith you have, the better, right?  By that logic, shouldn't you respect and revere "evolutionists" for their deeper-than-yours faith?
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #62 on: January 01, 2012, 12:30:42 PM »
consider the source.

I did and you didn't even deserve this reply.

gzuz - you do not have an even basic understanding of evolutionary theory.  No one faults you for that.  What you are being called out for is complete and utter dishonesty about the subject.  You're taking WAG's (wild assed guesses) based on things you have heard from creationists.  And I'm sure you believe them, which is also fine as far as I'm concerned.  What is NOT OK, is to pretend that the things you assert about evolutionary theory are valid, in any way.  They are not.  They are not scientific in any way.  They are "god-based" ideas, for lack of a better description.  If God created life, then couldn't God have also triggered evolution as we see it?[1]

Look, creationists (god people), don't want evolution to be true, because they are afraid that it invalidates their god.  The truth is, the theory of evolution does not in any way invalidate anyone's god.  It is a scientific theory, backed by more facts and evidence than most theories in science, it is totally falsifiable (but so far, nothing has falsified it), and it is completely open to any and all honest scientific debate - always.

But the problem we have, is that creationists want to destroy it, so they can prop up their god story of creation.  It's not enough that creationists cannot falsify the theory - totally possible for any honest scientist - but they have to create lies, and pseudo-scientific jargon to keep the rest of the believers from thinking that science may actually know something.  Creationists have done absolutely no scientific work at all to truly falsify the ToE.  All they have done is attacked the theory, purely because that don't like what it potentially suggests.

Another unfortunate by=product of this religious war against science, is that it is attacking the very science that makes the world a healthier, and more comfortable place for those who need medicine, and other artifacts produced by the base theory of evolution.  Without the ToE, most of the medicines we have would not be possible (generally speaking).

Anyway, I dragged this out longer than I wanted to, but in the end, you need to really consider either showing that you clearly understand what the theory say's, or stop arguing as though you do.  It's embarrassing to watch people like yourself get into these discussions without the knowledge of even the most basic tenets of the theory.  It's like you walked into a gunfight with a stick, shaped like a rifle.
 1. I certainly don't believe this myself, but at least it doesn't require that people like you become dishonest perpetrators of falsities, and pathetic weasels against scientific discovery that benefit humans thousands of times more than clasped hands

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #63 on: January 01, 2012, 12:48:58 PM »
did a rat just sprout full wings and know how to instinctively fly?

Is that what you believe evolution to be?

Quote
  Because if not, think about how awkward it would be to be a rat who kind of has front legs but they are kind of evolving into wings.

You mean like flying squirrels, fish, and snakes?

Quote
Yep, if evolution were true

I'm not seeing that you have a functional or explanatory understanding of what evolution is or how it works, you're conclusions are circumspect in that they insist upon notions that evolution does not in theory as a mechanism do and you knowingly omit information pertinent to what selective variables may or may not be present.  Such as your incredulous dismissal of a rat with wing like features, not that that actually is the evolution of bats.

The counter examples of flying squirrels, fish, and snakes is inserted to point out where species not necessarily closely related to develop the means of flight or actually gliding without the full function of wings in and of themselves.  The ability to glide would give an advantageous ability to escape predators, more easily reach food, and even hunt.

Which directly contradicts you're incredulous dismissal here:

Quote
because the transition would have made the rats easy pickin's for predators

Moving on:

Quote
And just how many would have had to been born at one time with the transitional features in order to assure that those transitions were passed on to the next generation?

This is again nested in your ignorance of basic science and evolutionary mechanisms.  Transitional species or any species for that matter does not simply leap out of a previous species, no more in isolated singular methods nor suddenly all at once.  Instead, individuals within a species are born with traits that favor their ability to survive and procreate, which allows them to pass on their genes more efficiently than their siblings or fellow members of the same species.  They will form a greater hierarchy of a surviving family that passes on a survival trait that can become increasingly more prevalent.  However, this isn't the only means of evolution to speciation, there are actually many such mechanisms with different consequences and selective variations that may induce a species to evolve to a point where it is no longer capable of being called the same species.

Concentrating on individual animals of a species is the mistake, the genes and the ability to promulgate those genes through a population are the important factors.

Quote
  There's just to many problems with this for me to have enough faith to believe in evolution.

If I told you that the bible says undetectable leprechauns hide behind every tree and that because of this idiotic assertion, the bible has too many problems for me to have enough faith to believe in the bible... would you take me seriously?

Why should we take you seriously when you do the same with evolution?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #64 on: January 02, 2012, 10:33:40 AM »
Here's an example of how evolution might work in reality, and why the concept of "transitional fossils" is kind of silly.

Let's say you have a group of humans who live on a tiny island.  They have enough space to live, but there isn't enough food; there's no nearby landmasses for other sources of food.  Ah, but there's the whole ocean to get food from, so the humans swim around underwater in order to catch fish, clams, crabs, etc.  So, hundreds or thousands of years pass; the humans have adapted to their environment and become better, more effective swimmers; more powerful leg muscles, larger lung capacity, a thicker layer of skin fat for buoyancy and warmth, etc.  Yet none of those things could be preserved as fossils, because they're all soft tissues.  Their bones will probably not have changed much, if at all.  So if you compared skeletons of the islanders to mainlanders, they wouldn't be much different.

Let thousands more years pass, and the humans have dramatically adapted to underwater life.  They can hold their breath for a long time, their bodies have changed even more to be able to swim underwater effectively.  Yet their skeletons still probably won't have changed much.  Someone who compared islander skeletons to mainlander skeletons would probably notice differences, perhaps as much as there is between humans and our precursors.  But those differences are not exactly great.  It would take hundreds of thousands of years of isolation for a "new" species to evolve from the old, so that its skeleton would be different enough to be classified as a different species.

Evolution can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1282
  • Darwins +85/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #65 on: January 03, 2012, 06:37:55 AM »
If I and my granddad fossilize but my dad decays completely, he will be a missing link ... for ever and ever and ever ... and history-deniers such as the OP will claim that I couldn't have descended from my granddad because my dad isn't in the fossil record. Given that fossilization is much, much, MUCH rarer than 66% (more like 0.00...0066%) and that every creature is a transition between one organism and another, it's impossible for there not to be missing links.
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #66 on: January 03, 2012, 10:34:17 AM »
Given that fossilization is much, much, MUCH rarer than 66% (more like 0.00...0066%) and that every creature is a transition between one organism and another, it's impossible for there not to be missing links.

Absolutely.  And add to that, of course, the fact that the only reason we are able to classify that "Y" is a descendant of "X", is precisely because we don't have every intervening fossil.  Trace an unbroken line of creatures from X to Y.....and where do you draw the line that one creature is in fact an X, or a Y? 

You'd have to name every individual creature as its own species....and I think THAT is where people like 'Freke and Spinner really don't understand.  They genuinely DO think that one day a chicken gave birth to a lizard (or whatever)....that species are, and always have been, as dramatically distinct as an integer number, rather than selected points on a sliding scale.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline jedweber

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3791
  • Darwins +19/-0
  • Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #67 on: January 03, 2012, 12:58:42 PM »
Just using rat-to-bat example, if that were true, did a rat just sprout full wings and know how to instinctively fly?  Because if not, think about how awkward it would be to be a rat who kind of has front legs but they are kind of evolving into wings.  It would have a hard time running around on the ground and feeding itself.  Yep, if evolution were true, we probably wouldn't have bats or rats...

Instead of making up silly strawman stories about bat evolution, you could have looked up what is known about the subject, and it might have answered some of your questions. They are not directly related to rats and are not members of the rodent family; they are believed to have evolved from arboreal mammals that spent most of their time climbing or hanging from trees. The earliest known forms of bats did not have echolocation and lacked the full flying ability of modern bats - their ancestors probably first developed the ability to glide from tree to tree, like "flying squirrels" do today...

Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat#Classification_and_evolution

Fossils solve mystery of bat evolution
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/13/bat.evolution

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2685
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #68 on: January 03, 2012, 02:35:32 PM »
I look at it like this sometimes, the most amazing thing about the fossil record and the theory of evolution is how creative the paleontologists are with their craft.

My example from a skeptics point of view: The fossil record is like a billion piece jigsaw puzzle that got scattered all around the globe and someone lost the box cover with the picture on it. At this point we have found a couple thousand pieces and managed to match a few hundred of them together.

Science and religion both seek to solve the puzzle. Both make up fantastic claims about what the picture might be. But of the two, at least scientists actually look at the pieces that have been discovered.  Too many theists don't feel the need to look at the pieces or help put the puzzle together, just say "naw, you got it all wrong...my great great granddad said it was [insert whatever fairy tale you like]"
« Last Edit: January 03, 2012, 02:38:01 PM by jaybwell32 »
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline jedweber

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3791
  • Darwins +19/-0
  • Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #69 on: January 03, 2012, 03:20:01 PM »
^ Let's keep in mind that fossils are not the sole evidence for evolution; they're not even the primary evidence...

There's additional evidence from genetics, biochemical organization, DNA sequencing, etc. There is evidence from comparative anatomy, geographical distribution, observed natural selection, observed speciation, and so forth. 

There are converging lines of evidence from multiple fields in biology and other sciences which all combine to support the currently accepted understanding of evolution...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #70 on: January 03, 2012, 03:21:52 PM »
^ Let's keep in mind that fossils are not the sole evidence for evolution; they're not even the primary evidence...

There's additional evidence from genetics, biochemical organization, DNA sequencing, etc. There is evidence from comparative anatomy, geographical distribution, observed natural selection, observed speciation, and so forth. 

There are converging lines of evidence from multiple fields in biology and other sciences which all combine to support the currently accepted understanding of evolution...

Indeed.  Francis Collins, the current head of the NIH (and himself an evangelical Christian) has said that we don't even need any fossil evidence at all, that the DNA evidence alone is far and away more than enough to prove evolution true.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #71 on: January 13, 2012, 01:51:37 PM »
Spinner, what would count - to you - as a transitional fossil?
A fish with legs and lungs would count. But I'm not that specific.
There ARE thousands of transitional fossils.
I suggest you read on this stuff, rather than spouting creationist lies.
I suggest you give me the links to the site that has thousands of images of transitional fossils.

Even if there are a supposed few thousand transitional fossils, there are millions of fossils in the record. If a rat evolved into a bat for some reason, there would need to be about as many fossils of the rat to bat animal as there would be of a rat and of a bat. Otherwise the fossil record wouldn't make sense.
Of course, a holy  book that tells us about talking snakes and donkeys makes perfect sense, and doesn't need any evidence. Bit of a double standard you've got there, eh?
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #72 on: January 13, 2012, 01:58:11 PM »
Here's an example of how evolution might work in reality, and why the concept of "transitional fossils" is kind of silly.

Let's say you have a group of humans who live on a tiny island.  They have enough space to live, but there isn't enough food; there's no nearby landmasses for other sources of food.  Ah, but there's the whole ocean to get food from, so the humans swim around underwater in order to catch fish, clams, crabs, etc.  So, hundreds or thousands of years pass; the humans have adapted to their environment and become better, more effective swimmers; more powerful leg muscles, larger lung capacity, a thicker layer of skin fat for buoyancy and warmth, etc.  Yet none of those things could be preserved as fossils, because they're all soft tissues.  Their bones will probably not have changed much, if at all.  So if you compared skeletons of the islanders to mainlanders, they wouldn't be much different.

Let thousands more years pass, and the humans have dramatically adapted to underwater life.  They can hold their breath for a long time, their bodies have changed even more to be able to swim underwater effectively.  Yet their skeletons still probably won't have changed much.  Someone who compared islander skeletons to mainlander skeletons would probably notice differences, perhaps as much as there is between humans and our precursors.  But those differences are not exactly great.  It would take hundreds of thousands of years of isolation for a "new" species to evolve from the old, so that its skeleton would be different enough to be classified as a different species.

Evolution can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

Hi there - while you're in your explaining mode, we'd love to hear the details of how a spirit, non-material being impregnates a human female!
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #73 on: January 13, 2012, 05:10:09 PM »
Hi there - while you're in your explaining mode, we'd love to hear the details of how a spirit, non-material being impregnates a human female!
Why ask me?

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6675
  • Darwins +888/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #74 on: January 13, 2012, 06:53:27 PM »
I think it is interesting that the "disbelief' in evolutionary theory is only an issue in the United States. Educated people all over the world accept science, but not here in the ol' U S of A. In India, where most people are Hindus, they do all kinds of good, award-winning  scientific research in astronomy, physics, you name it. What is wrong with us Americans? Is there something in our water? Do we just want to become the medieval backwater of the planet?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6675
  • Darwins +888/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #75 on: January 13, 2012, 07:05:37 PM »
^ Let's keep in mind that fossils are not the sole evidence for evolution; they're not even the primary evidence...

There's additional evidence from genetics, biochemical organization, DNA sequencing, etc. There is evidence from comparative anatomy, geographical distribution, observed natural selection, observed speciation, and so forth. 

There are converging lines of evidence from multiple fields in biology and other sciences which all combine to support the currently accepted understanding of evolution...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

Yeah, all those scientists are just making it up. It's all faked. That's it. We can't tell anything about anything based on stupid scientists!

The main problem with denying the theory of evolution is that you have to account for these two facts:
 
1) the theory is the best explanation for what is evident (the similarities between species of primates, for example) and
2) the theory has predicted many important scientific discoveries that the people of Darwin's era could not even imagine (genetics, for example).

The theory of evolution works in practice. You don't have to "believe" in it. It works, whether you believe in it or not. That is why it is science. Scientists don't have to make anything up. It either works or is doesn't.

Religion, on the other is not the best explanation for anything. You have to "believe" in it, and it still does not work. That is why people had to invent science to discover cures for diseases, how to build really tall building that don't fall down, how to make machines that let us talk to each other across time and space, etc. If religion worked, we would not need science!

Religion cannot give accurate predictions, because religion does not have to follow any rules. What do we expect to see in a universe created by a supernatural being? We have no idea. Could be anything. Talking snakes. Flying horses. Supernatural means no rules. Without rules, there can be no explanations or predictions that work for everyone everywhere, regardless of culture or belief.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #76 on: January 17, 2012, 01:14:46 PM »
I think it is interesting that the "disbelief' in evolutionary theory is only an issue in the United States. Educated people all over the world accept science, but not here in the ol' U S of A. In India, where most people are Hindus, they do all kinds of good, award-winning  scientific research in astronomy, physics, you name it. What is wrong with us Americans? Is there something in our water? Do we just want to become the medieval backwater of the planet?

I think its part of the delusion that many Americans have that they are some kind of chosen people.  So many have bought into this garbage that they need to keep the whole "bible is inviolate/God is real" nonsense going.  If they admit that we were at the right place and right time, like so many other empires were, and that there is nothing special about us, that would kill their self-worth.   This delusion with primitive medieval ideas has the potential to completely destroy what we've done.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1282
  • Darwins +85/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #77 on: January 18, 2012, 03:40:16 AM »
If they admit that we were at the right place and right time, like so many other empires were, and that there is nothing special about us, that would kill their self-worth.   This delusion with primitive medieval ideas has the potential to completely destroy what we've done.

or to put it another way ... "If they read 'Guns, germs and steel' by Jared Diamond"
Any chauvinist should read that one ... it opens the eyes so wide, they'll fall out.
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #78 on: January 18, 2012, 04:16:11 AM »
Hi there - while you're in your explaining mode, we'd love to hear the details of how a spirit, non-material being impregnates a human female!
Why ask me?

I think he might have mistaken you for a Christian, because in your previous post you didn't refer to magical sky daddies...

Go on up you baldhead.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #79 on: January 18, 2012, 11:27:45 AM »
or to put it another way ... "If they read 'Guns, germs and steel' by Jared Diamond"
Any chauvinist should read that one ... it opens the eyes so wide, they'll fall out.

oh hell yes.   A bit of a slog but should be required reading to get your "human" license. ;)
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #80 on: January 18, 2012, 06:25:16 PM »
I think he might have mistaken you for a Christian, because in your previous post you didn't refer to magical sky daddies...
I didn't refer to deities at all, and I was talking about evolution based on natural selection, so I'm at a loss for what he was thinking, or if he simply addressed his post at the wrong person.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3885
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #81 on: January 20, 2012, 03:25:30 PM »
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that the Bible is real. Prove that it is and THEN you'll have a proper argument.
The bible is real, I have one sitting right here on my desk. Does this mean I win?

In all seriousness, multiple times in history have oppositions to the bible been made. Some being that the cities mentioned in the bible do not exist, therefore the bible is false, since those accusations however, those cities have been found. Of course, some are still lost to history, but the former accusations against and the proof for those cities existing is almost proof enough for the other cities to be real as well, historically accurate.


As was Troy found. That Troy existed is not a good argument that The Illiad is factual, particularly the supernatural elements.


Another proof is that nothing in the bible has been disproved. There has been no physical evidence to disprove anything stated in the bible, while this goes along with the whole god of gaps and that teapot guys statement, it is still something to write a book of prophecies only to have every one of them met, and to not have it able to be disproved at all.
[/quote]

Nothing in the Bible proven to be not true??????? Are you kidding me? Bats are not birds, there is not a space above the sky that stores water, there is not enough water in the world to submerge all land masses, The is no evidence of said Exodus no pots or copperlites, The Slaughter of the Innocents would have left a evidence trail a mile wide and nothing mentions it outside the Bible

Vast swaths of the Bible are proven not to be true....particularly the concept that species suddenly popped into existence in their prent form. Hell even the fact the Bible contradicts itself multiple times disproves your statement without even begining to dip your toe in that pool of water called "reality" the we atheists swim in.


An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #82 on: January 21, 2012, 10:08:45 AM »
My example from a skeptics point of view: The fossil record is like a billion piece jigsaw puzzle that got scattered all around the globe and someone lost the box cover with the picture on it. At this point we have found a couple thousand pieces and managed to match a few hundred of them together.

Science and religion both seek to solve the puzzle. Both make up fantastic claims about what the picture might be. But of the two, at least scientists actually look at the pieces that have been discovered.  Too many theists don't feel the need to look at the pieces or help put the puzzle together, just say "naw, you got it all wrong...my great great granddad said it was [insert whatever fairy tale you like]"

Very well said.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #83 on: January 21, 2012, 10:22:40 AM »
I think it is interesting that the "disbelief' in evolutionary theory is only an issue in the United States. Educated people all over the world accept science, but not here in the ol' U S of A. In India, where most people are Hindus, they do all kinds of good, award-winning  scientific research in astronomy, physics, you name it. What is wrong with us Americans? Is there something in our water? Do we just want to become the medieval backwater of the planet?

Not true. Have you been to other countries? I've lived in Asia for nearly a decade, they are generally far more superstitious than Americans. In Laos and India they still have human sacrifice. They've never even heard of evolution, but you can bet the Christian missionaries have been there to spread their plague.

Americans are generally stupid and ignorant, but they're certainly not alone or the worst. And we should be thankful that many American Christians have at least excused away the most ridiculous parts of the bible as metaphor, not to be taken literally, while most muslims growing up with no education other than religious indoctrination believe the Koran is literal.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT