Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution
subbie
Member (Idle past 1363 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 143 of 200 (347600)
09-08-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Someone who cares
09-07-2006 10:28 PM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
And you don't have any fossils that are transitional leading to and from Archaeopteryx, to show evolution, and to show that Archaeopteryx was anywhere in the "line" of evolution.
I think this is my favorite creo argument of all time. Claim there are no transitional forms between A and Z, then, when one is produced, argue that there are no forms between A and L or between L and Z. The genius of this line is that it can be expanded ad infinitum.
There are no transitional forms between A and G, between G and L, between L and S or between S and Z. The more forms that are produced, the worse our problem gets. In the end, after A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z have been produced, we don't have a complete lineage, we have 25 gaps that we haven't filled. Simple mathematics would prove that it's much more unlikely that we will find 25 transitional forms than just 1. Therefore, logic dictates that evolution is impossible.
Q.E.D.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Someone who cares, posted 09-07-2006 10:28 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 10:12 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1363 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 148 of 200 (347637)
09-08-2006 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 9:09 PM


Re: Right!
If you are insisting that reptilian fossils with feathers must be frauds, does that mean that you concede that such fossils, if genuine, would be transitional fossils that support evolution?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 9:09 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 10:22 PM subbie has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1363 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 159 of 200 (347663)
09-08-2006 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 10:12 PM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
Isn't it a bit odd that in all our fossil finds we find not ONE transitional fossil that in undebateable? You would expect to find at least a few hundred, but can't even produce one that is undebateable...
Considering the tactics that creos use in debating, (moving the goalposts, strawman, refusal to define terms) it would be remarkable if there were an "undebateable" transitional. This is particularly so since creos insist that a transistional fossil must exhibit features that are impossible.
For example, your requirement that a fossil have "scale/feather" features is exactly the sort of fictitious gap creating dodge that I described in my message 143 above.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 10:12 PM Someone who cares has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1363 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 167 of 200 (347679)
09-08-2006 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 10:41 PM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
But if you examine the fossil finds, you will see all animals and plants complete, with no evolving parts, like scale/feathers.
That makes as much sense as saying there's no evidence of creationism because we've never seen a gene that had the words "Made by Yahweh" inscribed on them.
Parts don't evolve. Individual organisms don't evolve. Populations do.
I think you'll find that generally you can make a more compelling argument if you at least understand the basics of what you are arguing against. And I'd suggest that if you do want to understand the basics, that you look for that understanding from scientists, rather than creationists.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 10:41 PM Someone who cares has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024