Transitional Fossils in Evolution pt. 2 of 4

[DjDedan]

honestly i feel we spend way too much time and energy arguing with creationist and other anti-intellectuals.. it doesn't matter what they think,... science has proven itself time and time again, just look around your room (or straight ahead - proof abounds) - why must we waste time defending the scientific method when the proof is ALL AROUND US... the world is round and they can believe it's flat all they want, but the rest of us want to explore this world!

[ndrthrdr1]

@DjDedan You're right. We're wasting our time arguing with creationists. If they were capable of understanding reason, they wouldn't be creationists.

[Aheadstix85]

OKay, so care to explain the scientific evidence i sent you?, life cannot form underwater from chemicals, they are dispersed, they donot combine, thats bilogical fact!, 1 life has never been proven to arise from non living materials or dead, to say they do is not science, but sheer assumption, on observation protein forms outside the cell, proving that humans have always been humans, dogs always dogs, i can give you so much more evidence.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Chemicals combine by themselves to make the building blocks key ingredients of life . The early earth had trillions of chemical reactions per second occuring in the oceans , eventuly life got it right and we are here . Just do a cursory read on the subject stop making creationist look so bad .

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 I'm blocking you because you are incapable of learning, reading and it takes up too much of my time to set you on the right path .I cant volunter to be your tutor daily and I cant ignore your posts either .To learn science takes a great effort you have to want to improve yourself .God speed on your journey of seeking science literacy . Education can change you forever if you seek it out .

[TransparentChocolate]

@Aheadstix85 Why are you conflating evolution with abiogenesis? Evolution is the theory of how living creatures diversify over time via descent with modification. Evolution is not about how life BEGAN. Even if you managed to disprove abiogenesis, it wouldn't disprove evolution. It would just prove that we don't know how life began (which, given that abiogenesis is still a developing hypothesis, we already KNOW we don't know). We do however, know that life evolves, and how.

[Aheadstix85]

! billion years ago?, how can that be correct when its fact that 90% of all dating methods give a date less than 1 billion years?, evolution is guess work and a crock of shit!, i have all the evidence i need to shut you down!, i have proven to you that abiogenetics is a lie, what more do you need!, stop lying to yourself, there must be a creator, something cannot come from nothing!, thats fact, deal with it!. no wonder evolutionists separate themselfs from biologists, it proves them wrong.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 You are rehashing the same old argument in a poor manner . Most top rocks are young old ones are hard to find but they have been found . Your arguments are pathetic because you are underinformed .Your last sentance is goofy and inane .

[Aheadstix85]

Haha, i like the way you ignore the dead fact of abiogensis being wrong, that information i gave you was from yet another non atheistic non religious person, that proves evolution completely wrong, life cannot come for dead nor non living materials, biologists know this, its fact, that proves abiogensis pseudo-science.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Are handicaped by being a creationist ? Please read up on life from non life . Weather God zaped chemicals with a miracle or nature did it on its own it happened and the earliest life was simple cells .Evolution happened to their off spring . Life takes in non life (water) and makes it part of your biology daily , life non /life is always in flux by this interchange . You diont understand the basics to get this . The chemicals ingredients for life form all the time by themeseves.

[davidrstarr]

Notice the evolutionists easy way out of finding he necessary transitional fossils by stating that dossilization is a rare event and therefore it is unlikely one would ever find continuously transitional fossils across species. This does not excuse the theory of having to find these continuously transitional fossils to prove the theory.

[davidrstarr]

Please note that the speaker shows photos of LIVE birds (same species) living at the SAME time that have similiar characteristics and makes the outragegeous claim that this proves that evolution across species occurs over time. I am afraid this proves nothing excpet birds of the same species are slightly different.

[davidrstarr]

The speaker shows photos of closely related birds (same species) with different improper features and makes the improper conclusion that this also occurs across species without providing any evidence.

[davidrstarr]

Notice that the linkkages of dinosaurs are based on some similiar physical features. This does not prove evolution ar all. Simple creation of closely related animals is an alternate, simpler, more straightforward, and more highly probable explanation.

[Aheadstix85]

yes, all things have a certain amount of mutation that occurs, Dr lee spetner proves that, however something gradually evolving into something else is pure fiction, no one ever proved it it cannot be observed nor tested, that is fact, spetner is well known for shattering that common evolutionary theory.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Here is a video that points out the creationist flaws concerning abiogenesis . "Creationists and Abiogenesis "

[Aheadstix85]

They mean nothing, any person can make a vid and say its a fact, the true fact is Biology proves that evolution is not fact, this is why evolutionists separate themselves from biology, it proves their theory dead wrong, thats fact, life simply happening from dead or non living materials is not possible, that theory is dead in the water.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Evolution is the cornerstone of biology , the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming it has factual status now .Your creationist biased mind puts on blinders and screams no way . Your refusal to learn ,accept and come to terms with evolution doesnt make it go away for the rest of us . Macro evolution has been observed and over 300 species transitions are known from forminiferons alone . Facts are meaning less to you because your power of denial is stronger .

[Aheadstix85]

Bu there is no evidence that these chemicals formed life, as i told you previously, the whole water origin of life is debunked, as chemicas are diepersed and connot form with other chemicals, however, heat and water is needed, but there is no adequate explanation, the only other logical explanation still remains, a creator.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Denial and missinformation , denial and missinformation are your mantra . The early life on Earth was stromatolites / blue geen algea for over 1 billion years . Life comes from non life dead chemicals every day when you take in water and plants take in minerals nad you eat plants . Every atom in your body has been recycled and is the age of the universe itself .

[Aheadstix85]

Forget creationism, its just a name, the facts are biological science, proves evolution simply wrong, and impossible, ive gained more info that proves it just cannot happen, you guys say that life must have began in the sea?, nice theory, but biology has proven the so called chemicals disperse, and dont mix, there for no chance of any life forming at all, and the proteins that form outside the cell, can only ever form into more humans.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Here is the first video I found looking up life from non life -"Life from non-living materials (abiogenesis) - The Atheist Experience #656 " take the time to study and actualy listen to genuine science answers . Are you still claiming T rex had bad eye sight and ate plants or have I actualy gotten anywhere with you ? Facts should alter and change your mind IF FACTS have meaning to you .

[Aheadstix85]

BULLSHIT!, they prove nothing!, they are just more useless go nowhere fossils, and Dr lee spetner has destroyed that commonly thought up load of crap!, yes all things have a certain degree of evolution, but nothing! changes completely into something else, his book is called Not by chance, take a look, and you might, i repeat might, learn something, and i read a report by Paterson, and he admits that there is a lack of fossil evidence, just as i told you!.

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 Dr Patterson was referring to transitionals of early birds to a specific ancestor BEFORE archeopteryx NOT all fransitionals in General . Thats what creationists do MISS QOUTE to change the meaning .Its dishonest . Gould and Darwin are misquoted all the time by creationists .

[Aheadstix85]

No its not a water tight fact, thats why its called the THEORY!!!, of evolution, duhhh!, because its still speculation, now, yes people agree with micro, as we can see it, test it and observe it, we cannot do this with Macro, there is no evidence, no one has proven that one creature can change into something completely different over time, well not unless it magically generates some DNA info to do so, but that has been proven WRONG!.

[flyingscience]

1 @Aheadstix85 You obviously DONT know what THEORY actualy means .It doesnt mean hypothetical or theoretical or guesswork . Theory when used in science is an explanation of the working mechanics of evolution . Theory explains thousands of factual observations . Atomic theory , cellular theory , gravitational theory , theory of realativity .....

[flyingscience]

2@Aheadstix85 ...those are the names of other theories you may have heard of . The common vernacular usage of the word theory is wrong because the public is 95% science illiterate in the USA . I cant explain it better without writting a whole page .Watch this short video to understand the volcabulary correctly :"Evolution vs. Creationism:Is Evolution Just a Theory? "

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Go ahead and keep posting here just go slow maybe 1 subject a day because I cant write for 15 - 30 minutes a day .

[Aheadstix85]

BULLSHIT!!!!!, no one has ever proved macro!, no one!, dawkins has said that, countless evolution scientists have said that, no one has ever found any transitional fossilsw of the garadual change of one creature, you may see drawings of it in text books, but thats called an artists rendition, from the mind of a sketch artist!, thats not science!.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 You can insist all day long but a simple engine search on the subject can lead you to introductory info .I cant tutor you in science for free every day . You have to go past creationist propaganda and actualy read the factual status of these subjects . Their are videos on the subject if reading is to taxing . Search under Maro evolution / observed / VS micro evolution .

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 The information is only a few keystrokes away but you will have to take the initiative to do the work and study . Creationists have a mental block to not bother to listen , your power of denial is stronger than anyones ability to educate you . Its up to you to make yourself literate and slowly deconvert from fundamentalism .It takes months / years . Others have done it so can you .

[Aheadstix85]

Yes, and there is no evidence for it, no ones ever prove it at all, so how is it fact?, its a speculated theory, not a piece of factual evidence, thats fact.

But you obviously know more than then someone with a full biological degree, so explain to me, how a cell that replicates just forms for no reason then somehow gains more information and evolves into all we know?.

When its a fact that no one has peoven that at all.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 You have more than 2 hours of my life writting you . I cant write you any more . This is kindness from me . I cant help you any further . You have to write some sciece forums to get more help . Please refrain from writting back voluntarily so I dont have to block you . The education / deconversion process takes a long long time . I wish you the best .

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Evolution is documented every minute of every day by several medical facilities and drug companies . Viruses mutate quickly with them evolving into new strains .This is not to be confused with micro evolution new strains are signifigant .This will go over your head unless you study this .I would suggest reading up on Chiclid (sp?) fish evolution its easier to grasp .

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Watch evolution is a fact videos .There are over a dozen videos made that explain this well . You know how wrong it is for someone in this day and age to say heavier than air machines cant fly .Creationism is like that .

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Abiogenesis is life being organized from chemicals .The first cells where primative compared to todays cells .Note how diffrent and simple the first trees are (under 6' tall with primative leafs ) .First fish where armored tadpole like ,with out jaws . Advanced features came later in all organisms including cells .First cells very simple.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Chemical reactions and attractions are no simple subject abiogenisis is not easy to follow . Creationist literature missconstrues that as well . You will have to learn to compare and contrast the information from both camps .The problem is creationism is ingrained since childhoood and its not easy to leave .

[Aheadstix85]

Once again, proveit!, finding a T rex skeleton does not prove evolution, it proves that large lizard like creatures existed, now explain to me, just how life evolved, how did one creatue just suddently spontaniously generate the DNA needed to mutate gradually over time into something completely different, knowing that spontanious generation was disproved over 120 years go, scientists use "chance" and time as a fancy way of saying, we have no clue, but blind chance we assume proves it, WRONG!.

[Aheadstix85]

So?, thats just one convo, how do you explain the book he wrote, and that a reader wrote in saying where are these transitional fossils, he knew of none!!!/?, explain that?, and hes the head of a museaum with the worlds biggest collection???, um somethings very wrong there, and that bird with teeth was debunked, i have seen that proven many times, a chinese farmer glued to separate bones together, it was all over the news, the scientists where very embarrased, the farmer came clean.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Dr Patterson accepts evolution, and accepts transitional fossils . At the time he was stating you cant be certain of birds ancestors without more evidence . That was before the 15+ (new ones are still being found in Liang China) . Creationionist missquote out of context .You can read the article and see it in his own words . I have proved you as either liar or a moron now 3x on this . Write about it again and you become a liar because you know better now .

[Aheadstix85]

Um ok moron, with a name like atheist123, do you think hes religious?!?!?!, no dont, hes a whistle blower!!, nobodys ever proven abiogenetics, why is that so hard to take??, and its kinda logical, how do you make life without a creator?, ever the simplest life forms where created by something, no life just happens for no reason, science has shown and proven its IMPOSSIBLE!!!.

[Aheadstix85]

Mate, ist a fact!, in the strata layers where these should be steps of gradually changing life forms there are huge gaps then there is a bunch of fully formed life foms, no gardually changing fomrs of life at all, its a common fact the evolution and science contardict right there, and like i said before dawinism and the fossil record have been in conflict since day dot!, they actually found a fossilised starfish aged about 80 million years, scientists say it was no different to modern ones.

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 Gaps are normal and expected . Did you watch this video it explains that . Animals migrate and we may not know where from , it gives the illusion of sudden appearance . You only need to prove macro evolution once and its been done many times with gapless records of several; marine invertebrates . Google evidence for macro evolution . Stubborn stupidity is inexcusable , grow up get programmed and educated .Stop wasting your time fighting over things you are ignorant on .

[Aheadstix85]

No sorry, natural selection has been proven false, then again most of darwinism has been proven false, no credible fossils, nothing, even darwin said if we dont find just one credible fossil or piece of hard evidence, his theory should be discarded, some of the biggest evolutionist disagree with evolution, like Dr vernon kellog, Stephan J gould, Dr Lee m spetner, he actually crushed one of dawkins theorys, and , many more.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Natural selectionis agreed on by even creationists  your showing off your ignorance again . Fish give birth to thousasnds of babies only a few survive to adulthood . Their are genetic variations that change the offspring . Only the most fit survive .Its a watertight fact despite what ever you think of it .

[Aheadstix85]

yes, some parts of evolution are fact, like micro, thats been proven, observed and tested.

Not macro though, thats still never been proven at all, and since no scientist has ever proven that one creature can turn into something different given enough time, thats lookin pretty grim aswell, abiogenetics has also never been proven, all scientists have is a bunch of theorys, no actual evidence, sorry.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Abiogenesis is not evolution it is before evolution .Your off topic talking about that .Its far to hard for you to learn hear, go to videos on the subject and read / watch post Q's .

[Aheadstix85]

really?, thats why its just a bunch of theorys and speculations that go nowhere?, is that your 100% credible evidence, and also the evidence has been against dwarwins theory since the beginning, so how is it growing when in over 150 years nothing has actually been proven?, over 100 scientsts have attemped to prove that life came airise from non living material, guess what?, they all FAILED!, all loci poinst to a maker, abiogenetics is pseudo science.

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 Evolution was nailed with Arc Teryx discovered 2 year after origins came out , case closed .Life evolved so can you . You need to get a life and get studying .

[Aheadstix85]

Hahaha!, thats bullshit!, 1 abiogensis: never been proven!, 2 scientific logic no matter hwo you look at it says, something cannot come from nothing, so logicv says there must be a designer, and Looking into human DNA, its actually over 1 billion 5 hundred page novels worth of information not error, how do i know this??, an actual biologist told me, so where is your evidence that we just happened and then evolved?, because even dawkins has said that its never been proven.

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 Only creationist say  creation from Ex Nihilo.

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 The code of life is only 4 letters GTAC , due to spelling errors , copy errors the world is full of diversity .Thats not hard to understand you just dont like the idea that poor spelling made us all . IF not for evolution youd be a single cell floating and swimming around . You have the privilege to be the 5th ape a homo sapien sapien .

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 The evidence for evolution grows exponentially every year . .

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Fred Hoyle isn around to have learned what we know today . Stop quote mining .Evolution is a simple fact .

[Aheadstix85]

I found that quote actually and its real, plus there where a bunch of other quotes, he fully agrees that there is a lack of evidence in the fossl record, like i said, i dont know why your bothering arguing, even darwin agreed there was a lack of evidence to start with, its a fact that there is a lack of any fossil evidnce to back up evolution, Dr vernon kellog, another paleonyologist agrees with that, same as Stepgan J gould, and many more.

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 Patterson was talking about lack of transitionals to modern birds not all transitions in general . Since then more than a dozen transitional fossils of early birds have been found . Simply google his name and read the articles . Stop making yourself look like a moron over and over .

[Aheadstix85]

Like i said, i have been chatting to a person that has a degree in biology, and hes told me that hes agrees with me, no one has ever proven abiogenesis, its speculation, not fact, they have many theorys how life could have arisen from dead or non living materials, but no scaintists over 150 years has ever proven it at all, scientsific logic is pointing to it being impossoble, maybe it came from space?, but the question of how was it made still remains.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Yeah you found someone with a degree that agrees with you ! I already explained there are a few hundred real scientists who accept creationism - they are the tiny sliver of less than 1% who hold on for cult like reasons . Note all the other creationist leaning scientists drop literalism when educated in school (otherwise you'd have nearly 45% accept it).

[Aheadstix85]

Your sadly mistaken, there has never been a transitional fossil found, archaeroptor was though to be one, but thats was debunked, they found a star fish fossil age at appaerntly 80 million years, they tested and and it is exactly the same as modern star fish, the strata reveals only fully formed life forms, not graual change, the evidence disagrees with evolution.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Denying transitional fossils exist only show how cult like your objectivity is . You cant accept your wrong so you stick your fingers in your ears and say there are no transitionals . Transitionals exist by the thousands stop making yourself look like a moron .Your entitled to any faith , you have to accept the plain facts though .

[Aheadstix85]

So they find a new one every week, big deal!, means nothing, its just another fossil, the world is full of em, good for you!, you have found another meaningless fossil.

[Aheadstix85]

No the riciculous illogical theory still stands, but the theory s off it have been proven wrong, natural selection has been debunked, abiogenesis is no fact at all, just useless speculation and theory, nothing scientific there, all we know that is actual testable and observable fact is micro evolution, and we can see that everywhere, thats fact, nobodys ever prove in anyway, macro, or the changing of one creature into something completely different, thats crap.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Natural selection is a simply fact .More off spring are born than can survive .Only the most fit, fastest and smartest ,best adapted live to adulthood .

[Aheadstix85]

Hahah, yeas i know, they are called "tele evangelists" and i dont believe a word of em, infact Christ himself warned us of them, dont get sucked in he said, so im pedaling nothing, i dont support them at all.

And if im so unwilling and unfamiliar with science, then why am i chatting with an evolutionary biologist that confims and agrees that there is no actual evidence for abiogenesis, infact in over 100 years its yet to be proven, by any one.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Abiogenesis is a very difficult subject for the lay person . You have to first read about it from mainstream science . Creationism will and does mangle the subject thats no surprise .

[Aheadstix85]

Just found out an interesting fact

Over 90% of all dating methods come up with dates of less then 1 billion years, but hang on?, i thought according to evolution that the galaxy or universe was over 14 billion years old?, well that would just prove that its all assumption and guess work, scientists deliberately pick a date to fit in with other reasearch?, so how is that a scientfic fact?.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Most things to date are less than a billion years old thats a no brainer . Its difficult to go find rock layeers more than a billion years old . Short answer most surface areas of crust are more recent and are metamorpic or sedimentary rock . Finding old unchanged bedrock near the surface is hard unless you visit Greenland .

[Aheadstix85]

Well a very good firnd of mine onnce told me, just because a majority agree with it does not make it right.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Majority of the public is science illiterate . Majority of scientists is another story they are all studied / trained in these subjects .

[Aheadstix85]

Hmmm?, i think you need to read the book By top Brit paleontologist and curator of the Brit museum and find out just how many actual transitional fossils exist according to him, i'll cut to the chase, he knows of NONE!!!!, and hes the head of the museum with the most fossils in the world??!!, or you could check out the vid called Evolution gets owned, in that vid an evolutionist says that the fossil record means NOTHING!!!!. both men are evolutionists, explain that?.,

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 Transitional fossils are catalogued in multiple thousands with new ones found every 7 weeks on average . You can have your misinformed faith but keep it to yourself dont go shouting misinformation as if you know what your talking about . Transitionals are a fact both living and as fossils .

[Aheadstix85]

You do realise that im getting my information from evolutionists, not creationists

have you actually taken the scientific facts and put them against evolutionary theories??, because if you truly did, you would know just how much actual facts disagree with all of the evolutionary assumptions and speculations, it really is scary, now i know im reapeating myself but, 1 darwinism is wrong!, its been debunked, get over it!, most of evolution has been debunked, get over it!.

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 No one has ever debunked evolution they would be rich and famous . The theory has withstood the test of time and has been collaborated with new evidence every year . Your on the side that lost and makes a buffoon out of themselves constantly . Please stop embarrassing yourself your cup of stupid ,overflows .Stop making religious people look bad .WWJD, chuckle at you of course .

[Aheadstix85]

Thanks, i learn something new everday.

For instance, just this week i learned that abiogenesis has never actaully been proven correct at all, yet every biology book written says its completely true??, or that it must be true?, well just saying it must be true, dont make it that, dont believe every thing mainsteam science says, just cos a majority agrees, does not make it true.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Does it hurt or sting to be publicly proved wrong again and again ? Are you learning to question creationism yet ? Are you learning at all , am I get through to you to google search the subject before you make anymore inane comments ? Somewhere inside of you is a part of you that wants to be honest and correct . Knowledge trumps ignorance , truth trumps lies , give it a try .

[Aheadstix85]

No it has not, thats a fact known by most of the words biblical scholars and historians, look it up, the discovery of the dead sea scrolls in 1949, prove beyond a doubt that the Bible has not changed thoughout history, they found 3 books of the Bible that dated back over 1000 years earlier then the oldest Bible known.

[Aheadstix85]

Did you know that a small group of scientists took a freshly killed pig, buried it in sulpher mud than came back a fiew weeks later, they tested its age using the best up to date dating methods, it was aged at over 1 million years, its a secret fact that scientists use circular reasoning when dating with carbon 14.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 You are a wealth of misinformation. You exemplify why creationism thrives and why creationist leaders become multi millionaires peddling lies errors and overpriced  creationist books /tapes / coffee mugs / shirts etc.. You are unfamiliar with science unwilling to study and happy as a lark hating evolution and stewing in your illiteracy .

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 There are several dozen ways to contaminate dating test results to get wrong information .This is known to science .We already know what gives the wrong results , what chemicals and gasses corupt the numbers .Creationism milks this as trying to say the tests cant be reliable . There are mutiple dating methods .

[Aheadstix85]

Okay, tell me this, evolution says that life arose from nothing, blah, blah, blah,

yet all scientific actual evidence supports creationist views, why is that?, Dr lee spetner, and Dr colin paterson hjave said the exact opposite to everything you have told me, i simply typed in "scientific facts against evolution", and got huge amounts, explain that, the fact is science disagrees majorly with evolution in all fields.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 There are 700 hundred scientists that support creationism , sounds impressive untill you realise they are only 0.14% (less than 1%) of scientists trained in bio or geo fields . They make handsome livilihoods attacking mainstream science .Their work cant muster peer review however .Childhood indoctrination and cult psychology / lucrative profit explains their dedication to YEC.

[Aheadstix85]

Okay, so they have a T rex eye that they have studied in depth with them obviously?.

[Aheadstix85]

Hahaha, that video proves nothing!, its old debunked information!, Dr colin paterson of the British museum even said there are no transitional fossils hes aware of, and hes the head paleontologist of a museum with the largest fossil collection on earth!!!!, if he says there are no fossils you have problems!, have you even looked at the strata layers??, where evolution says there are creatures that show gradual change, instead we find fully formed creatures, where is this evidence???.

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 Thats called quote mining , look up what they really said . Transitional fossils exist my the documented thousands .Hiding behind a quote mine cant change the multiple thousands of scientists who disagree .Transitional living species and fossils are a fact .Creationism lost . Stop lying for Jesus its not Christian .

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 how many times have you struck out so far ,Ive lost count . Google Dr. Collin Patterson articles or any of the similiar pro science articles concerning his quote ."Quote: Colin Patterson on Transitional Fossils tale of two cities " Creationist decieve for profit . Creationist take highlighter pens and figure out ways to missquote scientists .

[Aheadstix85]

Well duhhh!, its not hard to put bones together at all, as we actually know anatomy and bone structure, but nobody knows how it moved, acted or thought, thats simply assumption, and guesswork, they modelled T rexs movement on a chicken as that was the closest muscle and bone structure they had, but nobody, or scientist actually knows how it moved, thats assumption, not science, get me??.

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 No body claims we know for certain its movement . We do know its running speed from calculating its running foot step strides .We do know for certain it ate meat and its teeth where strong . The alternate proto bible obviously lost out in the dogma wars . Most have never heard of it . You do know there were enough alternate gospels to make over a dozen alternate new testaments . They became heretical , because they where not used .The bible has changed significantly .

[Aheadstix85]

That description actually proves that fossilisation does not take million of years, insetad its quite a rapid process, and 80%??, well although thats good and over 50, i dont think its a good enough percentage to really understand it enough.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Mineralisation can take months or millions of years it depends on decay rate , water flow and mineral rich waters passing over the hollow voids after decay . A bone may rot in decades or a thousand years later .Depends on how its buried , pressure etc..

[Aheadstix85]

Hmmm, no thats not correct, the discovery of the dead sea scrolls proves beyond a doubt that the Bible had remained inchainged since its creation, they found a section from a Bible that was dated over 1000 years older than any known Bible, alot of skeptics ate their words on that one, so your wrong, and just because T rex moved fast means nothing, its eye eight was still horrible, and so was its whole way of hunting.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 I'm willing to chat with you because I think its good that people learn and and overcome the missinformation of creationism . Have you ever bothered to read up on what scientist claim about T rexes eye sight . I will post the first article I googled below.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 May the exploration of knowledge humble you .

T. rex had a binocular range of 55°, which is wider than that of modern hawks, Stevens reports in the summer Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Moreover, over the millennia, T. rex evolved features that improved its vision: Its snout grew lower and narrower, cheek grooves cleared its sight lines, and its eyeballs enlarged.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 "It was a selective advantage for this animal to see three-dimensionally ahead of it," Stevens says.

He found that T. rex might have had visual acuity as much as 13 times that of people. By comparison, an eagle's acuity is 3.6 times that of a person.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 You seem to be wrong about everything you claim .You are at a computer use it and research the things you think you know before you pass on missinformation .Your making yourself and religious people look bad .

[flyingscience]

1 . @Ahead Sticks 85 I have spent over an hour writing you .Your behavior is common and typical .Quoting creationist misinformation / lies . I cant waste any more of my life on you . You do need to be refuted , you need help and to be shown the errors of your ways . I cant be your personal tutor / cult deprogrammer forever . 

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Keep writing enough people and you will get enough information to see the error of your ways . Please study and read more , you dont want to go through life illiterate , decived and angry at mainstream science . Listen to what other people answer back to you . Dont be a sheeple the rest of your life .Use your compter to free yourself from fundamentalism.

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 Trace fossils of T rex's footprints in the distances indicated the speed at which they moved . When you stride faster your foot prints are further apart .Science isn't perfect but its the best tool we have for deciphering reality .Ancient holy texts fall short about being reliable because they are anonymous , and not the original texts .

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 From wikipedia :Sue was a record 80 percent complete.[7] Scientists believe that this specimen was covered by water and mud soon after its death which prevented other animals from carrying away the bones.[2] Additionally, the rushing water mixed the skeleton together. When the fossil was found, the hip bones were above the skull, and the leg bones were intertwined with the ribs. The large size and the excellent condition of the bones were also surprising.Most the teeth intact...

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Here is a video on sue the largest and most complete T rex known .Note the photos of it uncovered in the Earth .The spine and tail are articulated , other parts may be as well . There are probably better photos of the excavation out there if you look for them . Dont make such silly claims before you research the subject .Heres the video-"Waking the T. Rex: The Story of SUE "

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 I'll write more this evening .Dont take my criticism as insults . I can easily send you links to some of the articulated skeotons . T rex teeth where held firmly in place and where very strong / mega strong with the ability to bite and shear skelatones bones of its prey and carcuses of dead animals .This is based on evidence . We have its teeth marks / bite marks in other dinosaurs bones .Knowledge will free you from your anger towards mainstream biology /evolution .

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Your have very strange notions even for a creationist . I looked at photos of Sue (largest whole T rex ever discovered ) yesterday with my son . The tail and spine are in their life like position ,the bones are lined up and articulated .I am not saying every part was articulated but most of it . It is not hard to figure out where the bones of the arms go if it where just a pile . You need to study this more in depth to free your self from your misinformation .

[Aheadstix85]

Natural selection is a pile of shit and has been disproved, hell alot of darwins theorys have been disproved, what you just said means dick!, T rex had awful movement based eye sight!, he had small useless arms, his skeleton was based on a roosters, as no scientiost has ever found a whole skeleton, the odds are against him, oh heres how natural selection is fallacy, get 6 dogs, 3 hairy, 3 not hairy, winter comes, non hairy dies, hairy ones mate, how is anything new passed on???.

[Aheadstix85]

You think it would be on Google??, mate i get my information from a dentist!, it dont matter if its repyile or mammal, if the teeth are huge, you gotta have roots with holes to match em or bigger, or the teeth are comming out in the food!, thats common sense!, and physics!, and logic and physics say that T rex could not have been a meat eater!.

[Aheadstix85]

Im a creationist and i have never seen or heard of any creationist cutting anything off, infact i have proof of evolutionists delibarately tampering with evidence of every kind!, i have the Yale DNA scandal where the tried to make the DNA look more apelike, if you look at the facts, T rex was a terrible hunter, its root holes are to small, its eyes only see movement, its a bit like spinasaurus, he was totally faked!.

[Aheadstix85]

Oh, really?, so you have ectually seen and studies them?, you know this for a fact?, so why are the root holes much smaller then the teeth?, why is this apparently skilled hunter have terrible eye sight?, did you know that T rex skeletal form was modeled on a chickens?, why??, they had no freakin clue!!!!!, duhhhhhh!!!!, the bones did not come witha tag saying "this bone goes here", its called assumption!!!!, and so explain its useless tiny arms???, sound like a hunter to you!?.

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 Most school children can answer your questions .T rex may have been more of a scavenger than an aggressive hunter .Any cursory reading of T rex will tell you that .Natural selection would favor increased ability to smell carion over keen eye sight . Natural selection would favor smaller arms .The small arms are still very powerful capable of lifting 500 lbs .I wrote this already are you learning yet ?

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 In the early 1900's the people making discoveries where often lay people not scientists or doctors . Paleontology was not even a word it was a science in its infancy then just like aeronautical engineering . T Rex skeletons have been found articulated in life like positions removing all doubt to its sequence .

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 Suffice it to say you've struck out on every other point you've made so far . Dinosaur anatomy differs from mammals . Your claim and point on teeth is probably based on simple miss comparisons of mammals to dinosaurs . List an article or creationist scientist quote we can look up to nail this issue down with a google search . This wont end it but I can at least look up your claim.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 To say T rex was a plant eater because it had small arms and eyes and some plant mix in its mouth(you claim ) is still ignoring its predatory carnivour teeth . The teeth have big roots sufficent to hold and bite .Ive seen creationist TV shows that had models with the roots cut off in a clean line saying they where to small .It was laughable claim in comparison to actual T rex articles photos in N.Geoghraphic .

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Here is a video that touches on a few of these subjects : "T - Rex Warrior Or Wimp - Part 1 " watch the other parts that deal with the arms .

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Here is another video (actualy a clip from the show .It touches on the teeth and arms ."T-Rex: Tiny Arms - Horizon: T Rex Warrior or Wimp - BBC "

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Here is another video (actualy a clip from the show .It touches on the teeth and arms ."T-Rex: Tiny Arms - Horizon: T Rex Warrior or Wimp - BBC "

T Rexes had teeth that grew back continuously If any are lost . I think that only happens in carnivours ?

[Aheadstix85]

Do you have any actual knowledge on the dirt of T rex??, they first built him without any actual knowledge of what a T rex looked like, they copied the skeletal base from a chicken, eye sight is terrible, it arms quite useless, and this is a honed killer we are on about???, things just dont make sense, its teeth where massive yet its nerve holes wherent, anything that eats meat must have root holes just as long or longer, otherwise they pop out into the food.

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 Creationist claims are usually inane and asinine misinformation . Creationist leaders become multi millionaires attacking evolution and spewing tons of misinformation on subjects they are not educated in . Compare and contrast any creationist claim against mainstream science . T rex teeth roots are long not short , its a retarded creationist claim . T rex was a predator you are gullible if you buy their vegetarianism claim .

[Aheadstix85]

Well like Darwins theorys, alot of them have been debunked aswell.

Just type in Evolution gets owned, its got a dancing chicken in it, and whatch for the same geologist that contradicts himself, its quite hilarious.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Send me a link to the Evolution gets owned video (there are a few under that similiar heading ,at what time your upside down info is presented .

Ive walked over 5 geologic periods and I can say from my experience that tey are in sequence .

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 There are many living fossils especialy amongst invertabrates .Living fossils are rare less than 1% of life forms . Some animals can be static especialy ones that are mobile or widespread or very primitive Note the other 99% of life have changed / evolved signifigantly . Evolution is a fact for you to come to grips with and then eventually get over . Ignoring reality and knowledge is unhealthy .

[Aheadstix85]

Hahaha!, this is just stuff a dentist will tell you!, number 1 teeth are big, roots need to be just as big or bigger, the holes are not, explain that??, T rex has bad eye sight, if T rex was truly some great hunting animal its eyes would have been suited to see all things, but thats not the case, he could only see movement, T rexs body does not fit a hunters bodys style, he was to big and lumbering, face it!, he was not carnivore, plus traces of plant have been found in a t rexs teeth.

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 T rex has big pointy teeth , carnivore meat slicing teeth with serrated steak knife like edge .Anatomy 101 carnivores have meat eating teeth , vegetarian teeth like horses , cows , deer have plant grinding teeth .Visually there is a huge difference even to the lay person .It is a big debate if T rex was a scavenger predominantly or an active hunter or both . T rex ate meat no doubt about that .

[Aheadstix85]

No seriously, explain why the T rexs nerve endings holes are half the size of its actaulk teeth, when any dentist will tell you that they would need to be just as long or longer to be a meat eater, and why has plant traces been found in the teeth of fossilised t rex's??, , also the T rex had bad eye sight, it could only see movement, the evidence for him being a meat eater is poor, its simply another lot of assumption, an they build t rex from a skull anf quarter of skeleton.

[flyingscience]

@Aheadstix85 Sue was a nearly complete T rex , there have been over 22 T rex found as of the 1980's .There is no mystery about what a whole one looks like .

As for your nerve ending thing , I can look that up on Talk Origins if its not too obscure a wild claim . Creationism is rooted in ignorance and misinformation .A simple amount of typing and googling can shed light on any of these misinformed claims .

[Aheadstix85]

THis ridiculous!, this prooves nothing!, in fact 1 chinese biologits discovered that darwins "family tree" was upside down, completely upsidedown from how evolvion looks at it, no matter what it says, evolution just does not add up, also whn they first found T rex, he had all the hall marke of a plant eater, not a vicious predator, for example, small useless arms?, whats a predator gonna do with them?, plus those big teeth?, well he had root holes half that size, explain that?

[flyingscience]

@Aheadset X85 Family tree upside down claim is ludicrous . The preCambrian is followed by the Cambrian followed by the Ordovician . The number of species increases steadily and we see the incremental changes . I have dozens of videos on Ordovician age fossils .Evolution is confirmed in Cincinnati's (my city) world famous fossils alone .

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 Please elaborate on your root hole claim , never heard that one before . Make sure your shoes are clean before you shoot yourself in the foot or put your foot in your mouth . Creationists are funny in their misinformation . I enjoy entertainment so elaborate more . You better not be an evolutionist pretending to be a creationist saying silly things !

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 T rex had little arms because they didn't rely on them for hunting .Despite being little they are still very strong capable of picking up 500 lbs of flesh after the kill .The kill is done with the huge strong teeth . I love the creationist claim they ate watermelons and pumpkins before the fall in Eden ! Dont let my teasing you turn you off from science . You come on so sure of yourself but you are not really familiar with any of this in depth other than creationist propaganda.

[bratnip01]

I dont know if my last reply will post. But I will say it again. I respect you because I can see that you are intelligent, and you have not been demeaning. It is healthy and fun to have debates like this. Thanks.

[bratnip01]

Then she continues to pull the big "Bait and Switch" argument about a lot of micro evolution (changes within a species) being the proof of macro evolution (change to a completely different species). Her definition of what a transitional fossil is, is broad enough that no one can argue against it. The problem is that the transitional fossil definition needs to be refined. Those scallops in the diagram will always produce scallops, they will never in a trillion years turn into anything else.

[flyingscience]

Creationists need to learn the in depth the basics of what evolution and theory actualy mean .Dictionaries fall short they are not science specific (written by english majors) .

[bratnip01]

I am well informed on the basic principles of evolution. I have many years of experience having it crammed down my throat in college. My understanding goes much, much deeper than the surface.

[flyingscience]

Speciation means a species breaking off from its parent species .Speciation does not mean a completely different animal . Polar bears evolved from brown bears that's speciation .You expect an completly non bear like creature thats your missunderstanding .

[bratnip01]

Ther is nothing un-biblical about bears creating more bears. (brown, black, polar, russian etc...are all bears) My point is that bears, will never create non bears, which indeed is the type of thing Darwinian evolution demands.

[flyingscience]

New species of bears from evolving to live in new lands new environmeants . At what point is a bear not a bear ? What did bears and dogs and cats and horses and whales evolve from ? Some of those ancestors are known .

[flyingscience]

I haven't looked into bear origins I'm unfamiliar with it .But google is a few key strokes away . But if your mind refuses to accept the whole evolutionary notion as a possibility , you wont be able to learn about it .

[flyingscience]

She is not baiting and switching .You dont know what speciation means .You erroniously think all transitionals need be dramatic like Tiktallik (half fish /half amphibian ).

[bratnip01]

I am speaking about the loose definition of transitional forms. Yes all species change within limits. I am looking for the forms between a species. For example. Archeopteryx is commonly stated as a transitional form between reptiles and birds. It fails, just like the other ones, to show the transition between feathers and scales. Scales are a continuous sheet. Feathers are produced by individual follicles. That is a giant leap to make with no intermediates.

[flyingscience]

Bratnip - Archaeopteryx is an iconic transitional fossil , its new contender is tiktaalik these two are the most iconic of all (as the very symbol of transitional fossils) .Just like the Mona Lisa is the Icon for art .

[flyingscience]

Archeopteryx - has over 100 anatomical distinctions that modern birds dont have . Compare and contrast creationist literature vs mainstream sciences (talkorigins(dot)com .take on Archeopteryx .

[flyingscience]

The feathers where already developed in archey , that doesnt mean its not transitional .If I recal its airfoil is crude compared to modern birds . Some feather evolution is revealed in the 15+ dino /birds that are new from Liang China .

[flyingscience]

There is a wealth of new proto early bird fossils found within the last decade .They have no wings , 1/4 wings 1/2 wings , and 3/4 wings . They are more than theropods but less than birds What on Earth was God making if not evolution .

[Aheadstix85]

@flyingscience News flash!!!!, Morphology has been debunked!!!!!! this is false teaching!!!.

[flyingscience]

You have to understand the science terminology from science sources not theological creationists websites / books .Creationit literature is filled with missinformation thats why it cant be taught in schools .Its not science .

[bratnip01]

You again make the common mistake of assuming I use religious texts to get my info. Well, you are wrong. I have been reading college level science books, and science magazines since I was in grade school. And I read a ton of Creation science books. But only the ones that use real scientific facts, tested data, history, logic and reasoning. There is a list I refer to of PhD scientists who have made significant discoveries, and happen to believe in Intelligent Design.

[Aheadstix85]

@bratnip01 What?, and you think actual science actually is able to test and really study all their stuff??, how naive you are!, ive already had one evolutionist admit to me that there is no actual evidence fro abiogenetics, he he has a friggin degree in biology!.

[flyingscience]

@Ahead Sticks 85 Sit down and compare and contrast abiogenesis from the creationist camp vs mainstream science info . Abiogenesis is a difficult subject for the lay person .You should start at the basics with what the science vocabulary actually means VS what you think it means . Scientific illiteracy is nearly 100% amongst the creationists (95% amongst the rest of the USA) . Study is the key .Commit the time study both sides .

[flyingscience]

The scallops evolving new species (which didnt previously exist ) is evolution just like polar bears from brown bears . Learning about this takes a serious commitment of time .Its not everyones cup of tea .

[bratnip01]

My favorite line in the video is "The theory of Evolution does not require or predict a complete fossil record. It doesn't need it" (doesnt need proof) They are conveniently absent. Well, guess what? You absolutely need to show us that hard-core irrefutable proof or it remains an unverified theory, based on faith!

[flyingscience]

1. Brat - I will respond to you for the sake of others reading comments.I dont expect you to agree with me or anything I say . Geologicly you cant expect a perfect record of any organisms history .

[flyingscience]

2. It doesnt need a complete fossil record to establish evolution as a fact .A complete fossil record could only occur if there is constant continuous build up of sediments without any subtractive errosion . That's impossible .

[bratnip01]

Rapid burial is another way to preserve the fossils, and it happens in massive areas. Check out the fossil graveyards in The Arctic, Siberia, Germany, and California to name a few.

[flyingscience]

3. This lecture was given to a fossil club who already know the fundamentals of geology and evolution .This is not intended to explain to ,or convince creationists .That would be a diffrent lecture .

[flyingscience]

The theory of evolution does not need any fossils at all to confirm it . DNA and genome mapping have confirmed evolution more than fossils .There are gapless fossil records of some marine species . That alone has confirmed evolution as factual .

[flyingscience]

5. Several marine species are known and their speciation is documented . Diatoms , snails , seashells , crinouids (animals that fossils by the billions) .Speciation occured from evolution not special creation .

[MindAndMarzipan]

TY BTW :)

[MindAndMarzipan]

I'd love to watch this- but- I'm getting sick :( I'll just listen.

[MikeAbergail]

getting a little "MTV" with the video cam are we?

i like your lecturer. nice work.

[jimmypubeface23]

ooo i hate it how evolutionists use the horrible creationist term macro/micro evolution

[jebus6kryst]

Those are not creationist terms.  Microevolution evolution is change within a species and macroevolution is the change between species.

Just because creationists try to straw man those terms does not make them creationist terms.

[tehsma]

Thanks from me too!

[geyser]

Thanks!