Moderator: Community Team
jonesthecurl wrote:While I'm here, I'd been hoping someone else would ask this one, Viceroy, rather than racking up another la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you for myself...
but could you name the current science textbooks in which the picture you are mocking is shown, or the museums in which it is displayed?
"Again and again", I believe you said.
Viceroy63 wrote: Creatures just suddenly appearing out of no where with no intermediate species before them and then they all die out in some terrible catastrophe of mass extinction never leaving an intermediate species behind to form the next link in the evolutionary ladder? Time and time and time again the fossil records show that species just seem to come and go in and out of existence with no other species leading up to them and no new or diversified species being formed after them. How could that be?"
Viceroy63 wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:While I'm here, I'd been hoping someone else would ask this one, Viceroy, rather than racking up another la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you for myself...
but could you name the current science textbooks in which the picture you are mocking is shown, or the museums in which it is displayed?
"Again and again", I believe you said.
"[12] And that is exactly what the fossil records show. Creatures just suddenly appearing out of no where with no intermediate species before them and then they all die out in some terrible catastrophe of mass extinction never leaving an intermediate species behind to form the next link in the evolutionary ladder? Time and time and time again the fossil records show that species just seem to come and go in and out of existence with no other species leading up to them and no new or diversified species being formed after them. How could that be?"
One question, one answer. Thank You, and please come back again soon.
AndyDufresne wrote:I'll be in the Chamber of Understanding.
--Andy
BigBallinStalin wrote:What song is being sampled in that video?
AndyDufresne wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:What song is being sampled in that video?
Daft Punk - Around The World
--Andy
Viceroy63 wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:While I'm here, I'd been hoping someone else would ask this one, Viceroy, rather than racking up another la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you for myself...
but could you name the current science textbooks in which the picture you are mocking is shown, or the museums in which it is displayed?
"Again and again", I believe you said.
"[12] And that is exactly what the fossil records show. Creatures just suddenly appearing out of no where with no intermediate species before them and then they all die out in some terrible catastrophe of mass extinction never leaving an intermediate species behind to form the next link in the evolutionary ladder? Time and time and time again the fossil records show that species just seem to come and go in and out of existence with no other species leading up to them and no new or diversified species being formed after them. How could that be?"
One question, one answer. Thank You, and please come back again soon.
Viceroy63 wrote: Creatures just suddenly appearing out of no where with no intermediate species before them and then they all die out in some terrible catastrophe of mass extinction never leaving an intermediate species behind to form the next link in the evolutionary ladder? Time and time and time again the fossil records show that species just seem to come and go in and out of existence with no other species leading up to them and no new or diversified species being formed after them. How could that be?"
Juan_Bottom wrote:This isn't true, and also, every single species that ever existed, without meeting an abrupt end, has been the intermediary species of another. So every fossil is an intermediary fossil. As Charles Darwin wrote himself, if you could watch the evolution of the human species from the beginning, there would be no point where you could say "ok, this is exactly the point where man begins." Evolution, natural selection, doesn't work like that. All of those organisms whose fossils that we have neatly named and labeled, like Australopithecus, would not likely be identifiable as a separate species from it's parent species or it's offspring species. Over the grander scale of time, we could say that Australopithecus is definitely not a human, but that still wouldn't tell us where humanity actually began. We simply use the labels because it's convenient, and because fossils are fortunately rare enough that we can label them as separate species.
Viceroy63 wrote:I am so sure that you are mistaken about several facts. Fact number one: Darwin's Theory is a theory of evolution involving gradual change over millions of years. Therefore, birds don't just appear in the fossil records fully formed, without there first being a species before it with half ass formed wings that gradually evolved into fully viable wings. Nothing just appears suddenly and this is the problem.
Viceroy63 wrote:Every time we look at the fossil evidence we see fully formed creatures and nothing intermediary between them. That nonsense about not being able to see an intermediary creature, half lizard and half bird or half cow and half whale is a lie. It is something created to cover up the fact that the fossil record simply does not support the theory of evolution.
Viceroy63 wrote:"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
(The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, 1859)
Viceroy63 wrote:What Charles Darwin is saying is that there should be an enormous amount of transitional fossils just laying around with all the rest of the other fossils. But Darwin himself saw no evidence of this at all. That is why he stated that, " and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
Viceroy63 wrote:The interesting thing is that Darwinists used to publish fossil skeletons discovered (or tiny bones they found) while seeking to give the impression, through misleading wording, that these were transitional forms, though they in fact represented perfected life forms and...
Viceroy63 wrote:Exhibited no transitional characteristics at all, but in this case they feel no need to produce a fossil at all. Furthermore, the scientists who found the fossil referred to in these Darwinist publications have kept silent, and we are explicitly told that they have provided no details about the fossils.
Viceroy63 wrote:But despite all this, a fully detailed ape-man was already drawn in the Darwinist publications in question. As if the way that Darwinists produced pictures of a fictitious ape-man together with his family on the basis of a single pigs tooth were not sufficiently astonishing, this time they have amazingly produced an ape-man in the absence of a single fossil whatsoever.
Viceroy63 wrote:As if the way that Darwinists produced pictures of a fictitious ape-man together with his family on the basis of a single pigs tooth were not sufficiently astonishing, this time they have amazingly produced an ape-man in the absence of a single fossil whatsoever.
Viceroy63 wrote:THE ABSENCE OF A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL SPELLS THE END 0F DARWINISM!
Viceroy63 wrote:Creatures just suddenly appearing out of no where with no intermediate species before them and then they all die out in some terrible catastrophe of mass extinction never leaving an intermediate species behind to form the next link in the evolutionary ladder? Time and time and time again the fossil records show that species just seem to come and go in and out of existence with no other species leading up to them and no new or diversified species being formed after them. How could that be?"
BigBallinStalin wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:What song is being sampled in that video?
Daft Punk - Around The World
--Andy
Thank you, Andy.
Gentlemen, please continue.
Actually, this new page is about American-Chinese food.
Behold!
Juan_Bottom wrote:Viceroy63 wrote:I am so sure that you are mistaken about several facts. Fact number one: Darwin's Theory is a theory of evolution involving gradual change over millions of years. Therefore, birds don't just appear in the fossil records fully formed, without there first being a species before it with half ass formed wings that gradually evolved into fully viable wings. Nothing just appears suddenly and this is the problem.
What I said was that because evolutionary change takes place over long periods of time (usually) then every fossil of an animal that wasn't the end of a line is an intermediary species. Some organisms like the single-celled ones, insects, fish, crustaceans; these don't seem to need as long to adapt.Viceroy63 wrote:Every time we look at the fossil evidence we see fully formed creatures and nothing intermediary between them. That nonsense about not being able to see an intermediary creature, half lizard and half bird or half cow and half whale is a lie. It is something created to cover up the fact that the fossil record simply does not support the theory of evolution.
This isn't true. There are several species where we can follow their adaptations over quite long time periods, such as Whales. But this line of flowing fossils are irrelevant to the truth of Evolution, they just add to the evidence. We would still know that Whales where once land-based mammals, because they have placenta, milk, lungs, leg bones, remnants of a pelvis, and an up-down curved spine. The last example is why whales and Dolphins have a horizontal tail, and fish have a vertical tail.
And to continue this linear thinking, we'd still have the evidence that mammals once had gills & tails, and therefore came from water, because we all have them for varying periods during our own embryonic development from single-cells to complex lifeforms.
But of course, I'm not getting into the obvious yet sometimes confusing genetic evidence.Viceroy63 wrote:"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
(The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, 1859)
Now try to find the rest of the quote though. This is a famously cherry-picked out-of-context quotation, and it doesn't make the Theory of Evolution false. If Darwin had gone mad and hung himself with his own entrails, screaming that he was wrong all along, it still wouldn't prove evolution to be false. This is a common logical fallacy that I see.Viceroy63 wrote:What Charles Darwin is saying is that there should be an enormous amount of transitional fossils just laying around with all the rest of the other fossils. But Darwin himself saw no evidence of this at all. That is why he stated that, " and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
But at no point did he say that it meant that he was wrong. Darwin came up with his theory by observing living animals isolated from relatives of their same species, he did not use fossils. Fossils only bolster the evidence, but at no point does the evidence hinge on the fossil record. Though, of course, if you discovered a genuine Homo Sapien fossil under the Cretaceous Geological layer, that would instantly prove evolution false. But it hasn't happened.Viceroy63 wrote:The interesting thing is that Darwinists used to publish fossil skeletons discovered (or tiny bones they found) while seeking to give the impression, through misleading wording, that these were transitional forms, though they in fact represented perfected life forms and...
There is no such thing as a perfected life form. If there was there would be no sickness or death within that species. All life-forms are, to some interpretation of your phrase, "fully developed." But the "full development" of a life form has no bearing on Evolution, which is almost entirely driven by mutation. It's fundamental that you understand that because evolution is driven by mutation, by definition it's insanely resilient yet also unperfectable.
For example, most Asians are lactose intolerant. Most Irish can drink all the milk they please.... but would you say that the Irish are "more fully developed?"
The Human body itself is rife with ridiculous imperfections. Your eyeballs are placed backwards inside of your skull, with the "seeing" part placed behind all the wires that connect your eyes to your brain. The result is that you see blurry & inverted pictures that are full of holes. But through a series of corrections on the way to the brain, you see a clear picture. That's evolution fixing a giant error through many small patches.
Another example is your testicles, assuming you have them. Over time, they dropped to hang outside of your body. But in your ancestors they were inside of the body cavity to keep them warm. Because they dropped, the tube connecting your testicles to your penis actually goes up into your body cavity and around your bladder, before hooking back down to your penis. It lengthened incredibly to take a much longer route than an intelligent design would imply. Again, it's a poor design... and it's especially so when you consider that your sex bits are right next to your sh*thole.
The problem here, is that you actually have no idea/grasp on what a transitional form is, and you're purposely defining it in a way so that the definition can never be satisfied.Viceroy63 wrote:Exhibited no transitional characteristics at all, but in this case they feel no need to produce a fossil at all. Furthermore, the scientists who found the fossil referred to in these Darwinist publications have kept silent, and we are explicitly told that they have provided no details about the fossils.
There is no such thing as a transitional characteristic within a single species.Viceroy63 wrote:But despite all this, a fully detailed ape-man was already drawn in the Darwinist publications in question. As if the way that Darwinists produced pictures of a fictitious ape-man together with his family on the basis of a single pigs tooth were not sufficiently astonishing, this time they have amazingly produced an ape-man in the absence of a single fossil whatsoever.
Do you know how it was first realized that we are so closely related to Chimpanzees? Rabbit antibodies have the same reaction to humans as they do to Chimps, but had a slightly milder reaction by comparison to Bonobos; and so on and so fourth.
Later when our two genomes were radiated and paired it was discovered that we only have a 2% difference between us, but look at what a difference 2% makes!Viceroy63 wrote:As if the way that Darwinists produced pictures of a fictitious ape-man together with his family on the basis of a single pigs tooth were not sufficiently astonishing, this time they have amazingly produced an ape-man in the absence of a single fossil whatsoever.
You don't need any fossils to show that Human beings are Apes, or that we evolved from a common ancestor.Viceroy63 wrote:THE ABSENCE OF A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL SPELLS THE END 0F DARWINISM!
All species are transitional species, including yourself. It doesn't matter if you fossilize or not.
betiko wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:What song is being sampled in that video?
Daft Punk - Around The World
--Andy
Thank you, Andy.
Gentlemen, please continue.
Actually, this new page is about American-Chinese food.
Behold!
I think it looks good. other topic, is bacon cheese pizza burger unhealthy?
Viceroy63 wrote:Let me see if we can try this again once more. The theory of evolution claims that species evolve from lower life form species into more complex ones. The mechanism is called Natural Selection. And while natural selection is real it does not lead to a more complex life form.
The process of evolution is gradual taking millions if not billions of years to occur. In the case of a bird evolving from a reptile you would see perhaps half or slightly formed feathers but not yet feathers. The feathers themselves would take millions of years to evolve.
In those millions of years if not billions of years there would have had to lived and died an enormous amount of reptiles with half formed feathers. So where are they? Even if fossils are rare, after millions of years, even if we only find less then .01% of fossils, out of 1 Million, That is still a lot of fossils left in the earth. Again, where are they?
You can not say that we can not find those half formed feathered reptiles yet we have the first reptile before it became a bird and we have the bird as well but not any of the intermediary species with the slightly formed feathers in between. That is way too selective for fossil record keeping.
Viceroy63 wrote:THE ABSENCE OF A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL SPELLS THE END 0F DARWINISM!
There are more than 300 million fossils in existence today. Not a single one is a transitional form. There is not a trace of all the imaginary transitional forms that must have existed in their billions of even trillions, according to Darwinists.
To reiterate; THERE EXISTS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM. This fossil, like Ida, Ardi and all the other fossils that have been subject of such speculation, is merely being used for making a furore, which is all Darwinists have left.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users