Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Rev, you said prior to your Easter hiatus that you had seven arguments for us. Since #1 has clearly be demolished as effectively as a jellyfish in a cyclotron, would you care to move on to #2?

Boru

[Lemonvariable72]

I maybe mistaken but I was under the impression that most of what we know of the cambrian comes from the burgess shale in Canada and a site in china, I could be wrong. Eitherway you have a hard enough time finding sedimentary rock from the ediacarian let alone fossils from that, which as you state, likely didn't have mineralized shells.

Burgess was the first big Precambrian find, around the turn of last century. A big find was made in china in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but these were followed shortly afterwards by many other Cambrian sites around the world. We now have a pretty good chronological column of fossils and fauna covering the whole if Cambrian, not just one or two slices in time in Cambrian.

You can now see lineages evolving within Cambrian, each fossil being a transition for something else that comes later.

As usual, more data and better understand will turn anything into a nightmare for biblical morons. Cambrian is certainly not excluded.

I shouldve figured you be better versed in this then me, after all you have anomalocaris in DP. Still I think the general point I was getting at still stands, Also rev I'd like to make a point about something in a answers in genesis you posted

Since there is much more prestige in finding an ancestor of man than an ancestor of living apes (or worse yet, merely an extinct ape), there is immense pressure on paleoanthropologists to declare almost any ape fossil to be a “hominid.” As a result, the living apes have pretty much been left to find their own ancestors.

Thats utter bullshit. Total fucking bullshit. If you found and confirmed a find of a gorilla or chimpanzee ancestors every scientific journal would have your name on it, they very rare finds and far more prestigious then far more common human ancestor finds.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Better yet, why not read a book on the subject? Hell, everyone should read at least two damn books in their lives!

Part of the problem is that you have been duped by some of the books you read. Time to wake up and smell the Truth.

Just fuck right off you dolt.

You honestly think anyone with half a brain is going to listen to the retarded nonsense you come out with?

The world doesn't care about you or your stupid nonsensical beliefs. I'm sure whatever version of god it is you worship is admiring the great job you're doing telling us heathens where to go. I mean, posting stuff that is demonstrably wrong is a sure fire way to win us over buddy!

[pocaracas]

Ah... the balooning thread!
15 pages in less than 24 hours.... not an AF.org record, I'm sure, but telling all the same.
Telling of how wrong the OP is and how different people have tried to convey that and also instruct him on where the correct reasoning lies... still, the OP denies all this and chooses to remain in his own ignorance filled world.

Rev, I'll wait until your last proof to start posting the why people laugh at creationists videos... hopefully, you'll review yourself on those... and choose to remain ignorant... perhaps you're already featured on a few of them... who knows?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

ken hams personal soap bo Wrote:
Since there is much more prestige in finding an ancestor of man than an ancestor of living apes (or worse yet, merely an extinct ape), there is immense pressure on paleoanthropologists to declare almost any ape fossil to be a “hominid.” As a result, the living apes have pretty much been left to find their own ancestors.

Apes ARE hominds, you ignorant wretch.

Boru

[Cato]

Negative Cato, there is no knowledge of abiogenesis. Atheist just assume it to be true because their world view demands such an assumption.

There is no reason any particular universe should happen to produce life. Ours did. Theist assume a nebulous God did it. Atheists assume some nebulous abiogenetic process did it.

'Negative' does not mean 'I disagree'. Abiogenesis is based on our knowledge of chemistry and there is abosolutely no evidence for your God. Your reply is nonsense.

There is no atheist worldview. Atheism is also not a religion. These are proclamations given by theists that know their argument is fucked in an effort to claim the juvenile defense 'well, you do it too'.

---

Part of the problem is that you have been duped by some of the books you read. Time to wake up and smell the Truth.

Smell the truth? At least we are now able to cite your source material.

[truthBtold]

Rev, keep being a jerkoff Christian posting something and then not interacting.... see if anyone will bother responding, or if ur lucky even open the other 6 nonsense, unsupported threads that u say ur gonna post.. we can start treating u like some of the banned members. ........"all you are is dust in the wind".........

[Confused Ape]

Maybe this page on the Rational Wiki website will help to solve the mystery of why people like Revelation777 refuse to accept evolution.

CMI list of scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation

This particular list notes that "Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field." But, as we will see, "related" appears to include:
mathematicians and statisticians — fields consisting almost entirely of a priori reasoning rather than scientific observation
assorted medical professionals, including two veterinarians and a plastic surgeon[1]
engineers
and even a couple of philosophers.
Even the actual scientists frequently work in fields completely unrelated to the subject at hand. But, but, SCIENCE!
Some of the listed scientists are academics, all at evangelical Christian universities, such as the usual suspects Bob Jones University and Liberty University as well as more obscure ones like Cedarville University (in Ohio) and California Baptist University.

I had a look at the 'Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2' article on Answers In Genesis to see who wrote it. The author is Dr David Menton who is on that list. I then found this wikipedia article about the site.

Answers In Genesis - History

AiG employs a staff of Christian evangelicals, two of whom have doctorates from secular universities, including AiG's science director Georgia Purdom in genetics (Ohio State University, 1999),[23] and David Menton in biology (Brown University, 1966).[24][25][not in citation given] AiG previously employed Jason Lisle, who earned a Ph.D. in astrophysics,.[26] Lisle left AiG in 2012 to join the Institute for Creation Research as the ICR's New Director of Research.[27]

Revelation777 supplied a link to an article written by someone with scientific qualifications. I'm guessing he believes that Menton knows what he's talking about because he has a doctorate in biology.

[Cyberman]

Of course, because to him and similar pulpit-pounders The Truth™ is directly proportional to the authority of the person speaking it. For instance, JC 'must have been' his god incarnate, or son of same, because he said so; and, being a god, wouldn't possibly lie. Therefore everything the character said is literal truth. Rev's blinkered mind is way too narrow even to consider the possibility that what's important is the validity of the words spoken, not the person speaking them. That's why he keeps hiding behind the skankily repellant child-mind-rapist Ken Ham - a self-aggrandised authority touting the god squad party line.

[Cyberman]

What you've done in this thread, frankly, is an insult to our intelligence.

And skating on the very periphery of a breach of General Rule #1.