|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/16/2004 : 16:35:53 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
Well I got to see the evolution of the Elephant in my sons childrens book. We got to see all these 'various' stages of elephants evolving through the ages. Yet when we examine the fossil records of many of these drawings they do not exist. My son asked me what they are, I told him those are fake. They never existed and they are a drawing for fun.
You may very well be correct. What book (for four-year-olds) was it? "How the Elephant Got His Trunk and Other Fables?"
And have you, personally, ever examined the fossil record of anything, or are you just taking the word of the creationist web sites you've linked to so far?quote:
Might remind you that he is four years old and he has to be indoctrinated into your BS.
Be sure to indoctrinate him into your BS, first. That'll give him a head-start in life, and surely put him on the path to that Nobel Prize of which parents often dream.
By the way, I think it's very cool of you to include pro-evolution sentiments in your signature. Very brave, considering the positions you appear to hold in your posts. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2004 : 21:11:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
[b]verl
By the way, I think it's very cool of you to include pro-evolution sentiments in your signature. Very brave, considering the positions you appear to hold in your posts.
Hmmm pro evolution me? Never. I'm not sure what book it was. You could see the evolution of tiny elephants with a trunk shooting out of its mouth.
http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.html
Where are the bones? Pictures, drawings and guess work have created more fictional creatures with no fossil traces!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2004 : 21:17:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Personally I love how he invents a term and then blames us for not proving it/disproving it.
What exactly is a (hard core) missing link?
Size. The first horses were no bigger than dogs, with some considerably smaller. By contrast, modern equids can weigh more than a half ton. Examination of the fossil record reveals that horses changed little in size for their first 30 million years, but since then, a number of different lineages exhibited rapid and substantial increases. However, trends toward decreased size were also exhibited among some branches of the equid evolutionary tree (figure 6).
http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage03.html
No fossil records showing the horse to the 'Great Fish'.
Pretty big fella here, can't believe he's not in the fossil record!!!
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/images/whal.amb.jpeg![]() |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2004 : 21:42:12 [Permalink]
|
I wonder if verlch takes his children to an MD when they are sick? Wonder if he eats food bought from grocery stores?
I doubt that verlch is even aware that evolution is the single unifying theme of modern biology, and that if he dismisses evolution then he must necessarily dismiss the foundation upon which modern medicine and agriculture are founded, calling into question all conclusions made by these two fields of biology. Just to name a couple of the things that rest on biological science....
[edit-spelling. Can't ever spell "necessarily" right first try] |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 09/16/2004 21:43:34 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2004 : 01:22:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Personally I love how he invents a term and then blames us for not proving it/disproving it.
What exactly is a (hard core) missing link?
Size. The first horses were no bigger than dogs, with some considerably smaller. By contrast, modern equids can weigh more than a half ton. Examination of the fossil record reveals that horses changed little in size for their first 30 million years, but since then, a number of different lineages exhibited rapid and substantial increases. However, trends toward decreased size were also exhibited among some branches of the equid evolutionary tree (figure 6).
http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage03.html
No fossil records showing the horse to the 'Great Fish'.
Pretty big fella here, can't believe he's not in the fossil record!!!
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/images/whal.amb.jpeg![]()
Verlch, verlch, verlch. Did you not know that the evolution of horses is one of the best documented thus far?
quote:
horse fossils from North America. At the time, very few transitional fossils were known, apart from Archeopteryx. The sequence of horse fossils that Marsh described (and that T.H. Huxley popularized) was a striking example of evolution taking place in a single lineage. Here, one could see the fossil species "Eohippus" transformed into an almost totally different-looking (and very familiar) descendent, Equus, through a series of clear intermediates. Biologists and interested laypeople were justifiably excited. Some years later, the American Museum of Natural History assembled a famous exhibit of these fossil horses, designed to show gradual evolution from "Eohippus" (now called Hyracotherium) to modern Equus. Such exhibits focussed attention on the horse family not only as evidence for evolution per se, but also specifically as a model of gradual, straight-line evolution, with Equus being the "goal" of equine evolution. This story of the horse family was soon included in all biology textbooks.
As new fossils were discovered, though, it became clear that the old model of horse evolution was a serious oversimplification. The ancestors of the modern horse were roughly what that series showed, and were clear evidence that evolution had occurred. But it was misleading to portray horse evolution in that smooth straight line, for two reasons:
First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
Second, horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction". Also, horse species did not always come into being by gradual transformation ("anagenesis") of their ancestors; instead, sometimes new species "split off" from ancestors ("cladogenesis") and then co-existed with those ancestors for some time. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
Might I suggest that you actually study...... Oh, never mind.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2004 : 07:02:35 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
Hmmm pro evolution me? Never.
Absolutely. Is not "You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!" an affirmation of the scientific method and the fact that so very, very much can be learned about the past due to the effects we see in the present? I mean, you may not be able to see speciation as it happens, but once it does, it's pretty obvious. And the fossil record reflects the effects of evolution on an even larger scale, which is unwitnessable within any person's lifetime. That single sentence sums up much of the evidence for evolution, the great age of the Earth and universe, and much else. Very brave of you.quote:
I'm not sure what book it was. You could see the evolution of tiny elephants with a trunk shooting out of its mouth.
How strange, since an elephant's trunk is his nose.quote:
http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.html
Nice pro-evolution site.quote:
Where are the bones? Pictures, drawings and guess work have created more fictional creatures with no fossil traces!!!
Oh, you want the bones, too? Well, you'll have to find a web page which isn't just an overview...Elephants (mastodons}discovered in the Fayoum include the Moeritherium, and his descendants, Palaeomastodon and Phioma. The Moeritherium, which lived between 36 and 45 million years ago, is often considered a Dawn Elephant who's remains have been found in both marine deposits of the Eocene in the Fayoum, and in the lake beds of Moeris north of Wadi Naturn.
- http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/fossils.htm Here are some Gompothere bones, with the following:Remains of these animals have been found in sites such as Buluk, Lukeino and Mwiti, just to mention a few. One can even find ancient elephant-family fossils for sale.
Now, considering you'll probably dismiss the above, I'm not going to bother looking for more. The point is, the bones are out there. You just didn't bother to look for them. Isn't there something about the truly blind being those who will not see in that Bible of yours?
verlch also wrote:quote:
http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage03.html
Another nice pro-evolution page.quote:
No fossil records showing the horse to the 'Great Fish'.
What, you think horses evolved into whales? That's a failure on your part, and not a failure of evolution or evolutionary theory.quote:
Pretty big fella here, can't believe he's not in the fossil record!!!
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/images/whal.amb.jpeg
Good, because it is in the fossil record. How blind can you be? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2004 : 12:05:35 [Permalink]
|
Over 240 skeletons of the Zeuglodon, or more precisely the Basilosaurus (which means "King of Reptiles, a mistake made in when it was named in 1835 since whales are mammals) isis, have been found in an eight square kilometer (5 square mile) area of the Fayoum known today as Wadi Zeuglodon (or wadi al-Hitan, Whale Valley). Apparently this area was once a bay where the animals died in great numbers.
Yeah the flood put them on dry land. Covered them with soil and presto you have fossils!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2004 : 12:08:48 [Permalink]
|
http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/content/article/0,,NAV4-42_SAR1472,00.shtml
I find that a poor foosil. The bones need to be DNA tested to make sure there are part of the fossil and not something there to decieve us. Because Lord knows there is not much deception on this planet. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2004 : 12:16:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
I wonder if verlch takes his children to an MD when they are sick? Wonder if he eats food bought from grocery stores?
I doubt that verlch is even aware that evolution is the single unifying theme of modern biology, and that if he dismisses evolution then he must necessarily dismiss the foundation upon which modern medicine and agriculture are founded, calling into question all conclusions made by these two fields of biology. Just to name a couple of the things that rest on biological science....
[edit-spelling. Can't ever spell "necessarily" right first try]
If you read any of my earlier posts you would read that my son was to a Kidney specialist.
Evolution is nothing more than unprovable Dogma. Set squarly against what the bible says happened. The Bible means nothing for you.
If the police came to you and said off with your head if you don't stop believing in evolution, what would you say.
If the police came to me and said 'off with your head' or believe in evolution and burn your bible. I would say 'off with my head.'
|
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2004 : 12:42:26 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
I find that a poor foosil.
And I find you to be a poor paleontologist. It doesn't matter what you think of the quality of the fossil, the fact that it exists puts the lie to your earlier words. Instead of doing the Jesus-like thing of being humble and admitting your mistake, you instead say,quote:
The bones need to be DNA tested to make sure there are part of the fossil and not something there to decieve us. Because Lord knows there is not much deception on this planet.
Yeah, 'cause God must have put all those fossils in the ground to deceive us. God is a big, fat liar.
And besides, DNA degrades over time, and isn't often preserved during the fossilization process. What sort of test were you thinking of, anyway?quote:
Evolution is nothing more than unprovable Dogma.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. What does the Bible tell us about lying, verlch? Why do you continue to tell lies?quote:
Set squarly against what the bible says happened.
Not according to a lot of believers in the Bible.quote:
The Bible means nothing for you.
How do you know?quote:
If the police came to you and said off with your head if you don't stop believing in evolution, what would you say.
I would say, "I don't believe in evolution any more than I believe in gravity." Evolution, despite what you think, verlch, is not a religious belief. It requires no faith. All it requires is that you understand the concept and the evidence, which you refuse to do.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2004 : 20:43:37 [Permalink]
|
[/quote]Yeah, 'cause God must have put all those fossils in the ground to deceive us. God is a big, fat liar.
What does the Bible tell us about lying, verlch? Why do you continue to tell lies?]Set squarly against what the bible says happened.[
All of a sudden you are quoting from the book you mock? The book you are set squarly against? I wasn't trying to lie, there dearist friend.
The mere fact that I questioned the posibility of it being all the same bones should not disturb you. The fossil was extremely fragmented, after pilkington man I don't believe all that much in your books. If that animal actually lived before the flood, fine I do not know. I know there are alligators that look alot like that. So these days there are not any primitive examples of new species evolving on our planet? Mother nature is done bringing forth life out of nothing?
The elephant I saw in my sons childrens book looked much like a boar, with a trunk coming on the nose side of his upper lip! Now please correct me if I'm wrong that would be quite a find in real life or buried in 500 million years of fossil bearing earth, would it not?
Pictures like that, but then they stop. How come the pictures don't give me the whole lineage back to the squirming fish? As the elephant rose out of the mighty ocean and began his trek about on dry land. This confuses me too, so then right along side of this mighty boar like fish, female boar like fish/elephants are developing the male female relationship we see all over this great planet!!! Hmm, makes alot of sense there gentlemen. Seems like the odds of just a male and female like fish evolving would be very low, chances wise I mean. Then to have it happen in trillions of living creaturs, based all over this mighty planet!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
| Edited by - verlch on 09/17/2004 20:44:32 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2004 : 22:15:22 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
All of a sudden you are quoting from the book you mock?
I don't mock the Bible, and I've been quoting from it since your 4th post or so. It's hardly "sudden."quote:
The book you are set squarly against?
Says who? It's only in your mind that I am diametrically opposed to the Bible.quote:
I wasn't trying to lie, there dearist friend. The mere fact that I questioned the posibility of it being all the same bones should not disturb you.
Disturb me? Hardly. The pattern of ignorance you've displayed is very familiar to me now, it doesn't disturb me at all.quote:
The fossil was extremely fragmented...
And that matters to you, an wanna-be expert fossil-hunter, because?quote:
...after pilkington man I don't believe all that much in your books.
Ah, so a single hoax - discovered as a hoax by scientists over 50 years ago - calls into question all the other tens of thousands of fossils which have been found? Are they all fakes?
I told you why I don't put much effort into finding stuff for you, verlch, but I'm very sure that there are many more fossils from that one species, perhaps even available for viewing online. You're the one who made the claim that there are NO fossils of it. Do you now retract that claim, or will you stand by what you now know to be a lie?quote:
If that animal actually lived before the flood, fine I do not know.
What's it matter if it lived before or after a flood for which there is zero evidence?quote:
I know there are alligators that look alot like that. So these days there are not any primitive examples of new species evolving on our planet? Mother nature is done bringing forth life out of nothing?
Actually, yes. Those ecological niches are filled. Brand new species would be eaten long before they'd be able to get a toe-hold.quote:
The elephant I saw in my sons childrens book looked much like a boar, with a trunk coming on the nose side of his upper lip! Now please correct me if I'm wrong that would be quite a find in real life or buried in 500 million years of fossil bearing earth, would it not?
There's your blindness again - they are fossils of such beasts.quote:
Pictures like that, but then they stop. How come the pictures don't give me the whole lineage back to the squirming fish?
Because other pictures go back to the squirming fish.quote:
As the elephant rose out of the mighty ocean and began his trek about on dry land. This confuses me too, so then right along side of this mighty boar like fish, female boar like fish/elephants are developing the male female relationship we see all over this great planet!!! Hmm, makes alot of sense there gentlemen. Seems like the odds of just a male and female like fish evolving would be very low, chances wise I mean. Then to have it happen in trillions of living creaturs, based all over this mighty planet!!!
Oh, I get it now. You've made the bad assumption that what "evolution says" is that each animal that exists on land today evolved independently from different fish.
That's not evolutionary thought, verlch. Do you care that your imaginings of what evolution is don't match reality at all? Answer me that in the affirmative, and there might be hope for you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2004 : 02:45:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yeah the flood put them on dry land. Covered them with soil and presto you have fossils!!!
You can, of course, document this, yes?
Here's elephants:
quote:
#65532;
The family Elephantidae is the root from which the mammoth, Asian elephant, and African elephant came from. Interestingly, the Asian elephant is more closely related to the extinct mammoth than to the African elephant. The following categories apply to the tree in which the elephant has been placed. It is part of the Animalia kingdom, Chordata phylum, Vertebrata subphylum, Mammalia class, and Proboscidea order.
It is believed that 50-60 million years ago, mammals approximately the size of current day pigs, were the roots from which the proboscideans evolved from. Interestingly, based on both morphological and biochemical evidence, it is agreed that the manatees, dugongs, and hyraxes are the closest living relatives of the today's elephants. It is incredible to believe given the vastly different sizes, external appearance and the fact that they occupy completely different habitats.
http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.html
He waxes a bit fulsome in spots. In light of evolutionary process', I don't find the relationship between elephants and dugongs, etc., incredable at all. What I do find incredable, and ridiculus, is the notion that some extra high tide was responsible for all of the fossils. And that those fossils are no more than (snicker) 6000 years old.
Verlch, must I post the Leipzig again? You ran from it like Sarfati the last time.
Edited: Well damn my eyes if I didn't put up one of verlch's references. That's what happens when you read one day and answer the next. But I think I'll let it stand unless asked to find another.
Excellent work, v! You're learning in spite of yourself.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 09/18/2004 03:50:37 |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2004 : 14:21:31 [Permalink]
|
| I'm sorry but you fellas have lots to explain. I like how you claim victory at the slightest report from some Dr. Evolution. You guys have alot of explaining to do!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2004 : 14:42:40 [Permalink]
|
Is America a Harlot???
Lets look.
http://www.prophecywatch.com/articles/babylon_the_harlot.htm |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
