Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 2:10 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
#11
RE: Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
(April 21, 2014 at 9:10 am)Revelation777 Wrote: If a kind or basic type of animal over a long period of time has evolved into a different kind of basic type of animal

Ummm, no. Just no.

Right from the start you are showing a lack of knowledge in regards to evolution. Evolution is not a process whereby a type of animal changes into another type of animal. Evolution is a process of survival, whereby the animal gradually, over a period of time, adapts to its changing environment. Those that do not evolve typically do not survive.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Reply
#12
RE: Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
Rev, your issues with evolution come from a fundamental misunderstanding of it. Its funny how often people like you don't understand evolution and don't believe it, almost like the two are linked somehow....
'The more I learn about people the more I like my dog'- Mark Twain

'You can have all the faith you want in spirits, and the afterlife, and heaven and hell, but when it comes to this world, don't be an idiot. Cause you can tell me you put your faith in God to put you through the day, but when it comes time to cross the road, I know you look both ways.' - Dr House

“Young earth creationism is essentially the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences, and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life….but one particular tribe of uneducated, bronze aged, goat herders got it exactly right.” - Chuck Easttom

"If my good friend Doctor Gasparri speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched.....You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." - Pope Francis on freedom of speech
Reply
#13
RE: Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
There's plenty of transitional fossils, the problem is that you look up only to creationists sources of information.
Transitional form doesn't mean it's gonna be a totally different "kind of animal" or a cross between two animals. Sometimes changes are very slight and minimal, but then creationists say it's not a transitional form... or they say it's a completely "new form" so they could not acknowledge it's actually transitional fossil.

I suggest you read some good archeology books. Unfortunately i don't know any good titles about the topic :/
Reply
#14
RE: Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
Revy, every organism is in a transitional form compared to its descendants, so in a sense, every fossil is a transitional fossil.

You should do some research that doesn't come from creationists about evolution before you attempt to refute it.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply
#15
RE: Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
Quote:This is what would be expected from intelligent design not macroevolution.

However that hypothesis can be eliminated due to the fact that 99.8% of all of the species that have ever lived have now gone extinct.

In other words - the level of intelligence evidenced in the design is too low to be worthy of consideration.

Unless your God is dumber that a bag of dead squirrels, that is.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
Reply
#16
RE: Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
Ah, yes, "kinds" of animals.

That phrase that theists love to throw around without ever committing to a definition of it.

Are lions and tigers the same kind of animal? If no, you're going to have major issues with the Noah story.
If yes, then are "felines" in general one kind of animal? If they are you'd have to include things like meerkats and hyenas. (Yes, hyenas are felines not canines) And if that's not a fairly major change in an animal, then I have no idea what you're looking for.
Reply
#17
Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
(April 21, 2014 at 9:34 am)Faith No More Wrote: http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

Well, that was easy.

Oh look, another result:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...e/lines_03

Why, it's almost as if he didn't even bother looking.

(April 21, 2014 at 9:10 am)Revelation777 Wrote: Trilobites are an example of an organism appearing suddenly in the fossil record void of any evidence of transitions. Furthermore, trilobites have an organized complexity comparable to modern day invertebrates.

The facts remain, fossils have been discovered to suddenly appear in the record without transition. This is what would be expected from intelligent design not macroevolution.

Quote:Pick up a piece of rock from the Cambrian period, over 500 million years ago, and most of the fossils you'll see are trilobites. Paleontologists imagine a seafloor literally crawling with these armored arthropods. How did they survive so long and become so diverse? Well, one of the clues seems to lie in their hard shells that fossilize so well — their exoskeletons.

"Appeared suddenly" is a misunderstanding of the process of fossilization.

[Image: jurenepe.jpg]

Also doesn't look like God was fully successful there, gave up on a dozen varieties after a few hundred million, and just went "oh well":

[Image: amujezyn.jpg]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...success_03
Reply
#18
RE: Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
Revelation777 Wrote:Dear Atheist Friend,
I am planning on presenting on new threads, one at a time, what I will refer to as "The Seven Arguments." If my atheist friends answer each argument convincingly and satisfactory, then I will voluntarily and permanently leave this board...

From this thread, amongst several others.


If this is the first of these 'seven arguments' then I have high hopes for the other 6.


Not.


Facepalm
Reply
#19
RE: Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
I wonder if Rev knows that if he breeds he will be part of evolution as he transfers his DNA to the next generation(sorry for putting that thought in your head folks).
We are all transitional forms, each of us carries genetic differences.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
#20
RE: Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
Oh, boy. I am not surprised that this is your first in a series of devastating posts, Rev.

Here's the problem with posts like that. I'll admit that I'm making an assumption here, correct me if I'm wrong. Are you really open to any evidence? Are you really open to seeing how flawed that view is? I don't think you are. I think your confirmation bias is so strong that you will eat up anything anyone tells you that agrees with your view, while not stopping to do any research to see if that 'evidence' jibes with reality.

So here's my attempt to raise your consciousness.

There are many, many, many transitional fossils. You can see them in museums, you can see them in books, you can see them in peer reviewed, scholarly articles by evolutionary biologists. It is undeniable that transitional forms do exist.

It seems that your biggest issue is a false expectation of what should be there. This is a common tactic by creationists to confuse people who wouldn't know any better. They say things like "if evolution were true we should see hairy eskimos" and people think, "well, yeah!" and don't stop to critically think about that statement. So why wouldn't we expect to see unbidden volumes of fossils in the strata? Well, for one, fossilization is an extremely rare event. Why would you expect anything different? Here is an explanation of how fossils are formed. See the bibliography for sources. Second, the type of animal being fossilized makes a huge difference in fossilization; animals with minerally exoskeletons will more easily fossilize than those with soft ones. Lastly, sometimes events need to occur, and animals have to be present for those fossilization events. Mudslides, floods (resist the temptation, please), ice falls/freezes, even transportation to a sedimentary area (falling in a river or swamp).

Essentially, you and other creationists are deliberately creating your own false expectations and pointing to the fact that reality doesn't meet them. It is the equivalent of me saying that since Jesus doesn't wake me up softly each morning by appearing in the flesh in my bedroom, and singing to me and telling me he loves me, that Jesus doesn't exist. You wouldn't even expect that as a Christian, would you? So how much bearing does that expectation have on the existence/nonexistence of Jesus?
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great

PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)