Even if you are wrong on archeopteryx I'm not suggesting that in itself invalidates your common descent. I have read this article nature.com. Something called Xiaotinga found in Liaoning, China by some guy named Xing Xu. Seems like it said something like this will be widely accepted. I think that this was peer-reviewed and has been accepted as established science.
When did the velociraptor, or deinonychus live? Do you believe that these therapods were the grandmothers of archeopteryx? I suppose I was a little vague we should confine ourselves to more specific therapods. If there is no evolution debate why are we talking? If there is no debate why do the vast majority of humans on earth feel evolution flawed. If I said the earth was flat I don't think you'd be trying to defend that.
@philackey We are talking because christians and people like you can't accept that evolution is true without any need for god. That sadly is the majority because of that major group and their misunderstanding of evolution.
Belief in God is a private matter. If you believe its a dead end thats fine. Why are you threatened by one of your icons being taken away. I thought science didn't care, it only follows where the facts go. Why bring up God? Do you feel guilty? The evolution debate should exist apart from questions about God.
@philackey I wish belief in gods was a private matter but the Discovery Institute proves otherwise. I'm not threatened at all with your desire to misuse science to validate your religious view. There is no evolution debate except by theists trying to pretend there is one.
@TXatheist Doesn't the Discovery Institute believe in evolution though? I mean they also believe it was guided, but at least they aren't contradicting evolution or anything with ludicrous chronology like the Young-Earthers think.
I meant to say Archeopteryx cannot be the descendant of therapod dinosaurs if it lived and died before therapods ever existed. Just this year there were headlines that said Archeopteryx has been knocked from its perch by fossil discoveries in China. You would be better off doing what evolutionist do best just find a new fossil to squeeze in there. Do you really not keep up on this?
@philackey Archeopteryx existed ~150 MA, therapods ~230MA so you are incorrect. Scientists will continue to find more fossils to confirm the evolutionary timeline.
Gould = Punctuated equilibrium, enough said. What about Feduccia? The worlds foremost expert on bird/dino evolution. Did you just say sharks are their own grandmothers? Is that supposed to make sense. Stop and think, being your own grandmother means time travel, temporal paradox. Is that your explanation? Remember the transitional fossil is supposed to come between, not before. Archeopteryx is considered an evolutionary dead end.
@philackey Dawkins rebuttal of Gould, enough said. Feduccia has been noted to claim he can see how some view Archeopteryx as a transitional fossil and how other scientists may not see it as transitional. Did I just say sharks have changed very little? Yes, the grandmother looks almost identical to sharks millions of years later. Archeopteryx is a transitional fossil with a tail and wing feathers within science. Belief in god is a dead end.
You could check the writings of Stephen Jay Gould, Alan Feduccia, or Pat Shipman. Archeopteryx has not been considered a transitional fossil for over 30 years. Therapod dinosaurs are considered the ancestors of birds yet Archeopteryx appears 20 million years earlier in the fossil record. So it can't be its own grandmother can it? This is not disputed even among evolutionist. If you did not know this what other lies have you believed. Next time do some research, you are embarrassing youself.
@philackey Gould has been fine with classifying it a transitional fossil and Shipman is just a newer and revamped Duane Gish. Are sharks their own grandmother? Yes, some species last for millions of years. The lie that I believed was god and ID were valid.
How can the author not remove this video. No credible evolutionist believes tiktaalik, or archeopteryx are transitional fossils. This has been known for years. This video is an embarrassment on the evolutionist community. If proofs of evolution that have been debunked long ago yet are still taught as proof what does that say about the veracity of evolution. To anyone who even does cursory research can find the truth. Why not show piltdown man next?
@BRESHEET Four-legged creatures were mucking around a muddy basin in what is now Poland about 397 million years ago. And they left behind distinctive footprints, which have turned back the clock on the evolution of these landlubbers.
The land creatures likely had bodies shaped somewhat like crocodiles, with fin-like tails and stumpy legs. And some of them were pretty big, reaching up to about 10 feet (3 meters) in length, the researchers said. livesciencedotcom
@TXatheist He's not really worth anyone's time. It's not immediately obvious though so when he gets aggressive with me I go and give people a heads up where he is so they don't waste time on him too. He's been thoroughly exposed. If someone still wants to debate him....they now know what they're dealing with.
@TXatheist it is accepted science now that it does NOT reperesent a traisitional form. TOE is so fluid and shape shifting that some are now claiming that everything is a transitional form....ridiculous.
@grfield1 Information science? Is that how they are repackaging creationism ID now? When you get christian Francis Collins to deny evolution I will listen to you.
@TXatheist All creationists are IDer's but not all IDers are creationists. ID does not attempt to identify the designer because that is outside the ability of the scietific method. Creationists obswerve the world thru the lens of the Bible. IDer's only observe the data that we know in the present. Information systems have never been know to arrange themselves at any time in history.
@grfield1 No real big difference just like YEC and OEC have a great deal in common but false ideas for the most part. The idea there is a designer is outside science. Muslim creationists use the other book from god, the koran. Data? What data do we have that shows design...scientifically. What information system causes a seed from a weed to land in my yard and create a dandelion cause I didn't put it there in my lush green yard? Was it god or just the wind blowing seeds? Just nature.
@TXatheist signature in the cell.com where we did the seeds or nature come from. Life was either natural or supernatural there is no other alternative.
@grfield1 I am not going to guess what I'm supposed to figure out on some website. I've read all about ID and I'm asking you. Life was natural as there is nothing from the supernatural except in story books.
What data do we have that shows design...scientifically?
@grfield1 Pathetic! You are like a Flat Earther laughing at geologists for saying the Earth is round because we now know it is a slightly flattened ellipsoid. Even to refer to the Polish data requires you to accept the existence of primitive tetrapods 397 million years ago - yet Creationists try to deny the existence of primitive tetrapods at all and claim the Earth is 6,000 years old. The Polish data ADDS to the proof for evolution of land animals from fish, rather than undermining it.
@wild0hawk Ha...it's not from me. Some people take screenshots of his more amusing idiocies. I just enjoy passing it around because he stalks and annoys me.
@transtlantic oh no, now ur communicateing out of ur anul cavity, thats some amzeing evolutionary process u going through lmao, now u obsessively keep pulling this AB resistance out ur arse wen ive allready told u that micoevolution is a fact, genes and dna's allways had a mechanism of adaptations for survival,but micoevolution in no way shape or form has any explanation for macroevolution unless genes and dna,s were allready in a safe existence b4 the primodial soup
Except the modern mudskipper shares very similar morphology. And they are just the wrong age. Tiktaalik, could just as easily be a member of the subfamily Oxudercinae.
@TXatheist The problem I see is Tiktaalik so similar to a modern mudskipper it's hard for me to believe it isn't one. It's just larger. But so were most animals in the past.
Sorry man, even if you showed that to them they would jump back to their next line of defense that either a) its all one big massive conspiracy involving scientists from all different diciplines and all over the world, or b) god put tiktaalik and archeopteryx there to confuse us (which would be an unbelievably stupid thing for an all powerful god to do). Ive determined that there is no winning with creationists.
Lol what a joke. The hind quarter of tiktaalic was never found yet they pretended it had hind legs bc their money was running out. Pathetic that this fake science will make evidence from nothing to perpetuate it.
@9pt9 They gave it hindlimbs because earlier lobe-finned fish such as eusthenopteron and pandericthys had bony, muscular hindfins so we can extrapolate that tiktaalik, a lobe finned fish which we can see shared features of both fish and tetrapods, and thus is evolutionary vloser to tetrapods than eusthenopteron, would have had hindfins that were more limb-like.
@axorozzas So take half of a fossil and pretend it had morphology that is unconfirmed and tout it as one of the greatest transitional finds ever? Sounds like a desparate grab for evidence. There should be MILLIONS of obvious transtions if the theory was correct.
@9pt9 Well, there are, maybe not millions, but certainly hundreds of obvious transitionals. Certainly you don't expect to find a fossil for every single creature that ever lived, right? A fossil is extremely rare. Also, only 6 skeletons of T-Rex have been found.. you think those are the only 6 that ever lived?
In Tiktaalik's case, the most important feature are the front fins, which have wrists... something no other fish does. It also had a neck, like no other fish, and shoulder girdles.
How is this fossil not transitional? Of course it is. It has characteristics of both fish and amphibians. If you say it is a fish, then you have to explain the features that it posses that no other living fish does, like the neck and the wrists. Also, it isn't a modern amphibian, since it has gills and scales. It is perfectly situated half-way between fish and amphibian
The fact that we are all related takes the pressure off a lot of fundamentalists that are dorkin' farm animals...so it really is a win win...not an epic fail....
every one google evolutionnews and the name of this fossil. they go on to say that this fossil is not the missing link that PBS made it out to be. actually ran by scientist and wrote by scientist. Epic Fail
@silentpimpsmak And if you to evolutionnews be aware they are xian fundamentalists that can't get any public university to support their xian creationism repacked as false science. The discovery institute is run by xian nutjobs and fail at life.
There can be over a million minute hooks on one feather. Nothing which is half way between a feather and a reptile's scale has ever been found. An animal with half developed wings could neither run nor fly properly and would be quickly eliminated. Finally, Archaeopteryx is irrelevant, as a fossil of a normal bird has been found in strata of same dating as Archeopteryx.
The idea that it has feathers is the part you not getting. Prolonged gliding is beneficial. Contrary to your misunderstand birds and dinosaurs did live together which is why Archaeopteryx is valid.
@TXatheist lol, if that is a transitional fossil, would that fossil should exhibit imperfect feather-like characteristics, mate don't base everything you read or watch is true, research first
ralph, imperfect feather? That's not even a category. The feather is typical but just a few are there. I have researched, that's how I realize evolution is a fact and god is imaginary.
@TXatheist The Discovery Institute provided the "expert" witnesses to counter the evolutionists claims at this trial in Dover, Pa.
They lost. The conservative judge (appointed by Bush) heard the evidence and concluded that ID is creationism.
One of the Discovery Institute witnesses claimed he has "no preference regarding what children are taught in public schools" because HIS kids attend private school. Really? I care what kids are taught. Why doesn't he care? What a prick, yes?
@TheRalph09 oh really? what species would that bird in the same strata as Archaeopteryx be? what birds existed 145mya?
Half a feather is half a feather's worth of insulation, and half a feather's worth MORE insulation than a scale provides A half a feather's worth of insulation gives that much more drag when a Archaeopteryx falls from a tree, giving that much more chance of survival. I don't know about you, but if i was falling from a tree i'd rather have half a feather than none at all.
It's not a transitional... Panderichthys, the predecessor of Tikky had front fins that were more powerful than the rear fins. Since the early tetrapods (including acanthostega) were powered by their rear legs/lobes, it stands to reason that a transitional between pan. and acanthostega would be powered by rear lobes (or at least show a visible transfer of power). However, Tikky's was a front-wheel-drive creature...its front lobes were bigger and more powerful than the back.
Let's suppose that god (no specific religion) does not exist.
Now, we need to find an alternative to the creation of the universe. Let's called this event (The event that started the universe several billion years ago) "X", since there are dozens of different theories.
Now, how did X come into existence? The only three possibilities are:
The first option, it came from nothing, is not logically possible. Something cannot come from nothing. There is no logical explanation for this. So this is not an option.
Now the only two possibilities are 2 and 3. If you answer 2, you simply start over. Let's call the product of answer 2, "Y". So, where did "Y" come from? 1 isn't possible, and 2 leads you to the same question.
This leaves us with 3, it existed forever. For all time. If you believe this, how can you say that there is no god? How is it possible that ever single one of the trillion events that leads us to our present happened by pure chance? That we are the result of a cosmic accident? The universe begs for intelligent design. The complexity of the eye is amazing, and humans cannot even crack the DNA code. How could it happen by accident? The answer is it cannot. That is not a logical response.
What? Just because something is eternal, it follows that there must be a God?
Of course not. Even if we said that the universe was eternal, that doesn't mean that there must ALSO be a God who is ALSO eternal.
Evolution is not 'pure chance'... it happens following natural laws. Think of a rainbow... how did the colors sort themselves? Was it pure chance, or was it built that way by someone? The correct answer is neither... it follows the laws of nature, which produce order.
@FiverBeyond dont waste ur time the eye has been debunked many times we have animals alive with every step in the eye evolution no evidence would ever convince creotards like that
@Countyp0 what u heard of genetics we have sequenced many animals dna we have the complete human genome many other complete genomes no the logical answer is to say i dont know not ohhh god did it
In the first place, the first option actually isn't logically impossible, because some scientists think than out universes was started by a different universe. In a separate universe, the laws of thermodynamics might not apply, and so something could truly come from nothing in this new place.
eric, you should tell all the xians that say god is real that cause they are the deceivers. Pity them and hopefully they will find the shame they deserve
eric, only in fairy tales did god create anything. Actually it does and it can today also. You are a transitional form of your parents. That's what happens when chromosomes align, you create a altered specimen. Very, very, very similar...but different.
I don't know any fairy tales where God creates things. I know of true historical accounts where He does though.
I'm not a transitional form of my parents, I'm a reproduction of them. No matter how many times humans reproduce, we'll still remain humans. Just as we have done for 6000 years.
Of course we all change. Our dna is unravelling, we are getting dumber and weaker, which of course is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A natural law of a law maker. Who is this law maker?
eric, the bible is a fairy tale where god is real and creates things. It's available in your library or bookstore. I know you don't understand the difference between history and make believe. A reproduction would be exactly like your parents but because you are a altered mutation you are a evolutionary transition. No, in evolution hominids brains got larger so they are the same as 1 M years ago. We are getting dumber? Prove it. Natural law is from nature, not a who. No who needed.
So Julius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, King David, King Solomon etc are all fairy tales? Right ok. Maybe you should tell historians that then.
Nature isn't a being that creates laws, if it is, maybe you should introduce him. to us all.
Today, science is slowly catching up with the knowledge written down in the Bible thousands of years ago. There is a stone wall in Peru that contains stones so big that they cannot be moved by modern machinery. How did they move them?
eric, historians don't say caeser, PP or king david cured people by touch or floated off to heaven or magically diappeared from their graves. The supernatural part is the fairy tale. Nature is right outside and you can introduce yourself but it's not a him or her, it's a thing. Today, more are abandoning religion thanks to the ability to get information like the internet. Dry wall of Peru, The Incas were masters of this, in which blocks of stone are cut to fit together without mortar.
Only a few parts are reliable/accurate. How? Like Superman's supernatural abilities are fake the idea a regular guy lived in New York and BECAME Superman with super abilities. Fiction borrows from non-fiction at times. Nature can't create laws, but man can use science to describe nature like gravity and cosmology. Building a wall doesn't make you smarter and I never said you were smarter than them.
I never said that you said that I'm smarter than the Incas, I said you think we are smarter than them, as in today's humanity.
Anyway, you're off on a tangent. This is about your video being lies, not the Bible. I know what I believe is faith, but you don't think what you believe is faith, when it is.
It's you that needs to pay attention, I never said what you are referring to. The lies are not this video, but are you and others saying that god is real and the bible is anything but folklore or mythology. If someone doesn't admit it's myth then they are the liars. Faith is believing what you know ain't true-Mark Twain.
Twain was a heretic? good for him, me too because I call literal religion what it is, a fairy tale for the naive. Freemason's are cult members? Wow, a typical arrogant xian that thinks he's got a non-cult and others are cult followers. If you don't appreciate one of the greatest authors of that era you aren't just in trouble, you're uncultured and ignorant.
@ericinnit1 your assumption that the 'bill' on a platypus is the same as a duck is incorrect. It is similar in exterior appearance alone. As for flying fish's relation to birds, it is an example of convergent evolution. gliding is useful for many reasons, be it escape, travel, or predation and has been adopted by many different animal groups. Flying fish aren't closely related to birds, and we have many more reasons for that than just how they look
@ericinnit1 internal layout of organs, skeletal structures, what it uses for locomotion, energy, etc. its digestive system, the composition of the organs themselves and even the kinds of excrement they produce can all tell us where animals fit on the evolutionary timeline. In fact we can determine this with such accuracy that some of the only places we have trouble is in the earliest microorganisms, where horizontal gene transfer is present and it forms a gray area of sorts.
someone explain to me how this is transitional.. so we found an animal that looks half land animal and half water animal... we dont know that evolved... all we know is thqat it is a new animal that we havnt seen before... evolution therefore is assumed.
big, no, what we know is this fish has similar bone structure to mammals and not a ray fin fish. When you date it and see that it has the ability to be in water and on land you see what evolution theorizes, that some creature was able to leave the water and begin the process of land mammal hierarchy to the point much later where you get man.
what gives it the ability to be on land? can it breath air and water?
also again the point is similar structures dont assume anything.. we see that all over our planet in different animals, not connected by evolutional ancestry.. so again i wonder how one can label this a transitional fossil without making an assumption?
lobe fins versus ray fins(the bone structure). Actually they don't assume anything but when they are dated and aged and fall in the evolutionary hierachy they become an evolution fact. Where do you see Tiktaalik all over the planet today?
so the bones structures are similar.. once again tell me how that proves equates evolution? im just interested. its assumed that similar structure means ancestry, yet its never been observed by us. and just because its gone doesnt mean it evolved.. do you realize how many species go extinct every day? dating is one thing assuming evolution is another isnt it?
Right now I"m telling you to read up on evolution. Observed? If you mean by humans then no because we can't go back in time. But a fossil is observation. No, you are right there, extinction doesn't mean much to evolution but the fact that some creature that has mammal bones and not fish bones but lived in the water confirms that portion of evolutionary theory. 99.9% of every species that lived is extinct. Dating is putting a fossil in a geological aging chart.
but thats the problem we arent observing fossils.. this is one of very few strong transitional fossils? darwin said that if evolution were true, we would be seeing a rediculous amount of transitional fossils, and it would be overwhelming. we are not seeing that!
It depends on what YOU mean by transitional. You are transitional fossil from your parents to your kids. I'm not sure we will agree then because fossilization is a very rare occurrence. None of the fossils we find contradict evolution. We see that.
actually thats not true... take coalecanth fish for instance.... its a fish that was discovered to having lived 70 million years ago and was thought to be extinct... they are now finding them alive and totaly untouched by evolutionary process. same with army ants over a span of 100 million years.... not to mention the problem of polystrate fossils. fossils that move between the geologic colunm
I can see you aren't going to read anything but anti-evolution so I'm about done here. They thought it was extinct because we couldn't find them but once we did then we found a few a very certain species of coalecanth but it wasn't like they were easily detectable so some did live then and some new species live now. Polystrate when found on different layers because of platetectonics or erosion is not a geology problem. Read up and not creation stuff.
actually the point of good study is to read both literature for and aginst such a theory. ist called good logic and critical thinking. I have been studying richard dawkins and many other evolutionists and my questions that you have read still remain. I am finding in my study some very basic fatal flaws such as the assumptions that i have already told you. im not trying to start a fight or be ignorant, my questions i believe are valid. have we ever seen erosion cause polystrate?
big, very good point. I don't wish to be the "teacher" in this but I hope you will continue to reading. I do have one question. Do you read the skeptics of religion also? Like Dan Barker as just one example or for a more in depth guy, George Smith.
o boy i dont know where to even begin.... his books understandably are often fantasy based on some historical accuracy.. i personally enjoyed his books despite my disagreements.... maybe we can talk about his view on the council of nicea or the use of nostic gospels... hes not really an academic writer is he.
Wow, maybe you could start with how he's wrong and not an academic compared to the knuckleheads that try to say jesus was real and that had it not been for Constantine declaring xianity the official religion that all the bible thumpers would be worshipping a different imaginary friend, mithra.
you beleiev in forged documents? i dont think any scholars have found this ever.... not to mention there are over 10 000 copies of the original epistles found in the bible, originating from churches all over asia and europe and israel... and they match eachother almost always 100% .. thats hard evidence to refute and hard to forge without major obvious problems.... which biblical and historical scholars are not finding. can you point me to a forged document that you know of?
well Jesphus is not even the issue.. its extra biblical so it doesnt matter what happened to that. thats still debated hotily i might add.
also, calling a text fairy tale, is no evidence for its falsity its not a logical statement. I could browns works fairy tales, doesnt mean its true...
no, it's established by almost all scholars that Eusebius altered Josephus. Uh, jack and the bean stalk is a fairy tale...perfect analogy to the bible. When you write about fictional characters you can interchange fictional with fairy tale. The bible is mostly fiction, mostly fairy tale.
Beyond a few tribes and cities the supernatural in the bible are just as unfounded as Jack and the beanstalk. On what grounds do you think it's not a fairy tale with regard to the supernatural?
well there are many reasons.. one because it is written as a historical document according to greek and hebrew scholars. its not written as a metaphor or as a poetic book when it speak in regard to most supernatural events. Also there very little contradiction if at all in the bible which is incredible for a book written over 1600 years with 40 authors... its unmatched anywhere else in the world. so its claims gain some due credit and observation.
Big, most scholars(Alan Dundes) do realize folklore was very popular then. It was not historical writing at all with regard to most of the bible or do you wish to claim Adam and Eve were running around, the ark, a global flood during man's era, 2 or 7 of each kind fit on this ark, that jc healed lepers by touch? The men at the council of nicea voted which books made the bible and which didn't which is why there are contradictions.
but what you dont realize is that writing styles in hebrew and greek determined its style not its message. I took ancient greek... also your wrong about the councel of nicea they didnt vote on books of the bible at all.. look it up. they actually were affirming the deity of CHrist and as to whether christ and the father are one of the same esence or substance... as well as basic doctrines.. Jesus's miracles to by the way were written in historical form.
So in your faulted learning and severe bias did you learn the greeks wrote many mythology stories besides the jc story? You are wrong if you don't think the council of nicea was the timeframe for which 66 books became the bible. The council ALSO declared the trinity valid because prior to that it wasn't accepted but it was not a way to make xianity monotheism instead of pagan polytheism(though it is). The miracles were written as folklore and parable, not actual history. I have looked it up.
actually it was written in greek not BY the greeks.. it was the buisness language of the day. so your argument is mute and without point.. was still written by jews. further more you need to learn history. the council of nicea is dosumented and what was discussed is documented and the books of the bible were not discussed... and regardless fo what you looked up, you didnt obviously go to any credible sources because the majority of biblical and hebrew schiolars disagree with you.
No, my point is valid that greeks did write folklore and plagiarized mythology as noted by Alan Dundes so it's not moot. The Greek scriptures were written by jews? What you need is to stop learning from fundies who teach you religion from a pro-religious viewpoint. I gave you Alan Dundes and now I'm giving you Jesus Seminar scholar Earl Doherty so I"m giving you actual scholars and not heavily biased fundy scholars that can't even conceptualize god is imaginary.
no your point is extreme not valid.. the Jesus seminars are a joke and are hardly considered scholarly in the slightest. The greeks did not write the new testament. Nor the Old one... how do we know? easily historical tract authorship. Your views and the people you claim to be scholars are fringe and extreme.. where as the majority of credible scholars can tear there arguments down without so much as an effort.. you need to read something more backed by research. not guesses of personal bias.
No, you are another fundy follower who doesn't want history but religious revisionism as history. Greek mythology is a prominent genre for a reason, it's what many greeks did. Only in your little mind are my valid points fringe because you've been spoon fed xian bias so long you don't know any better. You need to stop reading xian historians, many lie because of their bias. I'm currently reading Chris Rodda and how the big liar David Barton revises history to fit his xian bias.
We have come from God, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming 'sub-creator' and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall."
- J.R.R. Tolkien
As you can see, Tolkien believed in God and the historical accounts of Genesis.
no actually i read all sorts of schollars. but the gentleman you just mentioned was rediculed by his peers for being extreme in his theories about folklore and mythology. Alan dundes was not respected for his work generally he was scrutinized. It wasant until he gave the university a huge grant did he get a specific honorable mention for doing so. He is fringe. you claim i look at xion bias scholars. do you even know what that means? Your scholars are not credible, mine are. like dr White.
Nope, your people are just sell outs to the fundies and don't actually back up the christ idea but because it's accepted that xianity was real they are kept. Gerd Ludemann started this 20+ years ago and was bumped out by the NY college system though no one could show him his errors. Yours are sell outs who were schooled by prior pro-xian teachers who had to conform. It's ok, jesus and xianity are just myths.
your right so the thousands of ancient documents that back up our theories and the archological evidence in conjuction with that is all a big lie... gotcha... (sarcasm) your a wierd conspiracy theorist and i have studied many of the documents myself, and im sorry to say but your deluded. you cant fool thousands of scholars who are in agreement of the same things.. sorry thats not a conspiracy, thats called a fact..
Please show me one of the documents that verifies a global flood during man's era, the ark, serpents or donkeys or burning bushes talk, that someone can heal lepers by touch. Your another fool for religion that learns the pro-xian revisionist side and can't admit it. I"m not the one with an imaginary friend so it's not be that's deluded. You still never told me a full scholar's name because your claims and their's won't line up. Sorry, you pick out the easy points for your pro-xian view
nice how you mention the oldest texts in the bible but stear clear of the newtestament where the documents and evidence is overwhelming... And if the new testament is true then we can trust the old as well because the new testament confirms the old in its teachings and in its prophecies by the way... here are some scholars, check your inbox.
nice how you gloss over the supernatural nonsense in the bible to make your points. I think the idea of jc curing lepers by touch is greek(there is no nt to the jews or me, it's just one book) and ou gloss over that cause you know it's bunk. No, just because some parts are true in fiction doesn't make all fiction true. If you are going to send me a list it better be relating to the supernatural bunk being proven. No one denies a man could lie and wonder around jerusalem and say he's god
i didnt gloss over anything and the new testament was written by jews, i could give you a biography of every author who wrote the new testament and there backgrounds, where there from, how oldd they were.. the detail is stagering. and its multiple books obviously because of the different writing styles.. they use the same techniques in modern forensics... its a fact.. you are looney, straight up crazy.. your views are sooo bogus i cant take them seriously at all. read my list again. they know.
Ok, tell me the authors name of the gospel writers, their age and their ancestry motor mouth. You are another revisionist xian that only reads the pro-xian nonsense and can't think critically at all. You are straight up insulting but that's theism for you. Nice insults while you hide behind a monitor. I read your list, I want their view on the supernatural but you can't do it.
Matthew was a Galilean and the son of Alpheus. He collected taxes from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas. His Tax Office was located in Capharnaum ..
there is one author, do you want the others.... see this really isnt hard..... and i could list for you the views of those authors i gave you but who has the time i sent you like 200 bible scholars.... go do some reading i have already done the rearch. the point was to show the overwhelming amount of people in the field who are scholars.
go to wikipedia motor mouth and look up gospel of matthew and learn....However most scholars today believe that "canonical Matt was originally written in Greek by a non eyewitness whose name is unknown to us and who depended on sources like Mark and Q" Now you are the one who can stop babbling and go do some reading cause you don't know what you are talking about.
ha ha did you seriously consult wikipedia lol.... thats hilarious.. do you know that wikipedia isnt accepted in academic papers due to its either bias or inconsitency.. isnt that interesting.... and by the way i have consulted experts in the field .. people who have studied there whole lives and one of the world language experts believes that its a first hand account.. once again you manage to pull out the extreme view.. very interesting.
wiki is just a summary of what my point was, that matt isn't the author. Way to dodge my accurate point and act like your point is now valid. Experts are not the ones you consult, you consult xian biased folks. The extreme view is that god is real and yet 75% of Americans think god is real. Very sad and you are only contributing to that ignorance.
ususally its the extreme view that is the minority.... as you so obviously exhibit... if you dont think mathew is the author then your research is horrible and i dont know how to even respond to such ignorance and denial.... its like you dont actually care about whats true at all... mind you the bible does say that in this time people will not stand for sound doctrine and will exchange the truth for a lie.. your fullfilling prophecy ha ha.. ironic isnt it lol?
Right, just like 93% of the national academy of scientists are atheist/agnostic because extreme(extremely educated really). It's you that is the ignorant one, the majority don't think it was matt but most uneducated people do. That is what is true and exhibited by you. The bible says lots of mind controlling things that doesn't like us thinking for ourselves. It's a great means of controlling the masses and the politicians and church leaders know it.
Once again you run your mouth with smears(brutal)and don't even know most scholars acknowledge the guy who made up matt simply plagiarized the book of mark. That's the fact you don't know so it's not me that's the fake with unwarranted ego for false knowledge.
your such a nub i took 4 a whole semester on that very topic, your all over the place..... he didnt plagarize, they arent sure at all quite frankly. its guessed that there was a document that we dont have yet.. mark is thought to have the original gospel.. but thats all based on textual criticism... learn the ins and outs of that, then come talk to me about facts and understanding the text... i wrote two papers on it.. and you call me ignorant.. pff, you have no idea what your talking about.
big, ask for your money back cause you have a xian revisionist education and know only the biased data which is only contributing to the dumbing down of people to believe god is real. I'm sure you got what you deserved on the papers, an F.
actually i was a straight A student. that was because of my strong research from both Pro fundamental christians and the ones you speak of as well... sorry but i have said it before and ill say it again, your views are fringe and typically unaccepted in the academic world of biblical scholarship....
You saym "Next time someone says there is no transitional fossil or argues against archaeopteryx show them tiktaalik." Guess what...
"Ancient Four-Legged Beasts Leave Their Mark" (ScienceNOW, January 6, 2010)
"Researchers have uncovered the earliest evidence of four-legged animals. Footprints and tracks preserved in the mud of an abandoned quarry in southeastern Poland date back 395 million years, UPENDING accepted thinking about when and where land animals first emerged...
"In some of the prints, individual digits can be made out. That means land animals already had feet 9 million years BEFORE the finlike structures of Tiktaalik and Panderichthys. In addition, some of the tracks show an animal walking with a diagonal, coordinated gait impossible for finned creatures...
"Other paleontologists are taken aback by the discovery of the tracks. 'We thought we'd pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods,' says Jennifer Clack of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. 'We have to RETHINK the whole thing.'"
AA32, which means the adjust the timescale, not the idea of evolution itself. Thanks for understanding that adjusting the timescale means they will now be able to insert even more species in the historic timeline.
"Evolution may take giant leaps" (PhysOrg, December 11, 2009)
"The work suggests that natural selection may not be the cause of speciation, which Pagel said 'really goes against the grain' for scientists who have a Darwinian view of evolution. The model that provided the best fit for the data is SURPRISINGLY INCOMPATIBLE with the idea that speciation is a result of many small small events, Pagel said."
Dr Pagel said that the research shows speciation is the result of rare events in the environment, such as genetic mutations, a shift in climate, or a mountain range rising up. Over the long term new species are formed at a constant rate, rather than the variable rate Pagel's team expected, but the constant rates are different for different groups of species...which means species don't have to change gradually but if their environment does they can adapt thru evolution. Cambrian explosion also.
The point is, tiktaalik is NOT the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be. So this video is no longer valid in its claim.
Not only does this cause yet another adjustment to evolution's timescale, but it also means a new transitional fossil must be found that predates these findings.
The video also claims we should find intermediate fossils of part fish and land animals. However, that's not what Gould/Eldredge (Punk Eek) and the following article indicates happens...
Which part is wrong? That it's in a different part of the timescale? i know you only have 500 characters but you have to show exactly why it's wrong other than the aging. The universe use to be 13 B years old and we have been able to calculate better at 14.5 B but that doesn't mean much concerning any other cosmology
Footprints show tetrapods walked on land 18m years earlier than thought according to Fossil footprints found in southern poland lead to a radical rethink of the evolution of the first four-legged animals or 'tetrapods'
Until now, experts had believed that the earliest tetrapod fossils are 375 million years old
However, the footprint tracks are 10 million years older than the oldest elpistostegid body fossils. Suggesting they are NOT transitional forms.
Tiktaalik still counts as a transitional fossil, and would still count as transitional even if our only example was 1 year old.
The footprints suggest that the Tiktaalik is not the LCA between fish and amphibians, but no one in their right mind would have said it was since you cannot produce evidence for LCA status.
In other words, no fossil can be called an LCA since it's currently impossible to demonstrate. cont....
So make-believe this, one fossil of some critter and the transition has been found? Modern day science can be as tricky as dirty politics. The voice over says it showed how evolution took place, no it did nothing of the kind. Whales being mammals does not mean we must imagine them starting as land critters, its more likely they came from Mars, transitioned into space beings and then to Earth because the oceans on Mars dried up. Our science needs to be real not make-believe.
Pakicetus-Nalacetus-Ichtyclestes-Gandakasia-Ambolocetus-Himalayacetus-Attockicetus-Remingtonocetus-Dalanistes-kutchicetus-Andrewshipius-Indocetus-Qaisracetus-Takracetus-Artiocetus-Babiacetus-Protocetus-Eocetus-Georgiacetus-Natchitochia-Dorudon-Ancalacetus-Zygorhiza-Saghacetus-Chrysocetus-Gaviacetus-Pontogeneus-Basilosaurus-Basiloterus->Modern whale. All of these are related with just tiny tiny changes between them, but from first to last a very huge change.
It's like watching a blank canvas, completely blank. Then you come back the next day and you see a tiny tiny dot on the canvas, the next day another tiny dot. And on day 1,000,000 you have a complete painting. A creationist have calculated that changing from Pakicetus to modern whale would take 50,000 changes. Thats just 1 tiny change every 2,000 years, guess how many changes a modern dog has had in 2,000 years from wolf. Game, set and match. Or check mate!
Wow. That's pretty uninformed right there. Tiktaalik is impressive, but not alone. If you are trying to find fault with evolution, you have all of your work ahead of you, my uneducated commenter.
Even if you are wrong on archeopteryx I'm not suggesting that in itself invalidates your common descent. I have read this article nature.com. Something called Xiaotinga found in Liaoning, China by some guy named Xing Xu. Seems like it said something like this will be widely accepted. I think that this was peer-reviewed and has been accepted as established science.
philackey 2 months ago
When did the velociraptor, or deinonychus live? Do you believe that these therapods were the grandmothers of archeopteryx? I suppose I was a little vague we should confine ourselves to more specific therapods. If there is no evolution debate why are we talking? If there is no debate why do the vast majority of humans on earth feel evolution flawed. If I said the earth was flat I don't think you'd be trying to defend that.
philackey 2 months ago
@philackey We are talking because christians and people like you can't accept that evolution is true without any need for god. That sadly is the majority because of that major group and their misunderstanding of evolution.
TXatheist 2 months ago
@TXatheist didnt know evolution or science for that matter could refute that concept(god)...
Daemonikat1 3 weeks ago
Belief in God is a private matter. If you believe its a dead end thats fine. Why are you threatened by one of your icons being taken away. I thought science didn't care, it only follows where the facts go. Why bring up God? Do you feel guilty? The evolution debate should exist apart from questions about God.
philackey 2 months ago
@philackey I wish belief in gods was a private matter but the Discovery Institute proves otherwise. I'm not threatened at all with your desire to misuse science to validate your religious view. There is no evolution debate except by theists trying to pretend there is one.
TXatheist 2 months ago
@TXatheist Doesn't the Discovery Institute believe in evolution though? I mean they also believe it was guided, but at least they aren't contradicting evolution or anything with ludicrous chronology like the Young-Earthers think.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
I meant to say Archeopteryx cannot be the descendant of therapod dinosaurs if it lived and died before therapods ever existed. Just this year there were headlines that said Archeopteryx has been knocked from its perch by fossil discoveries in China. You would be better off doing what evolutionist do best just find a new fossil to squeeze in there. Do you really not keep up on this?
philackey 2 months ago
@philackey Archeopteryx existed ~150 MA, therapods ~230MA so you are incorrect. Scientists will continue to find more fossils to confirm the evolutionary timeline.
TXatheist 2 months ago
Comment removed
philackey 2 months ago
Gould = Punctuated equilibrium, enough said. What about Feduccia? The worlds foremost expert on bird/dino evolution. Did you just say sharks are their own grandmothers? Is that supposed to make sense. Stop and think, being your own grandmother means time travel, temporal paradox. Is that your explanation? Remember the transitional fossil is supposed to come between, not before. Archeopteryx is considered an evolutionary dead end.
philackey 2 months ago
@philackey Dawkins rebuttal of Gould, enough said. Feduccia has been noted to claim he can see how some view Archeopteryx as a transitional fossil and how other scientists may not see it as transitional. Did I just say sharks have changed very little? Yes, the grandmother looks almost identical to sharks millions of years later. Archeopteryx is a transitional fossil with a tail and wing feathers within science. Belief in god is a dead end.
TXatheist 2 months ago
You could check the writings of Stephen Jay Gould, Alan Feduccia, or Pat Shipman. Archeopteryx has not been considered a transitional fossil for over 30 years. Therapod dinosaurs are considered the ancestors of birds yet Archeopteryx appears 20 million years earlier in the fossil record. So it can't be its own grandmother can it? This is not disputed even among evolutionist. If you did not know this what other lies have you believed. Next time do some research, you are embarrassing youself.
philackey 2 months ago
@philackey Gould has been fine with classifying it a transitional fossil and Shipman is just a newer and revamped Duane Gish. Are sharks their own grandmother? Yes, some species last for millions of years. The lie that I believed was god and ID were valid.
TXatheist 2 months ago
How can the author not remove this video. No credible evolutionist believes tiktaalik, or archeopteryx are transitional fossils. This has been known for years. This video is an embarrassment on the evolutionist community. If proofs of evolution that have been debunked long ago yet are still taught as proof what does that say about the veracity of evolution. To anyone who even does cursory research can find the truth. Why not show piltdown man next?
philackey 2 months ago
@philackey Please name some credible evolutionists that think archeopteryx isn't a transitional fossil. Evolution is a fact.
TXatheist 2 months ago
Why spoil a beautiful theory with the facts?
BRESHEET 3 months ago
@BRESHEET Four-legged creatures were mucking around a muddy basin in what is now Poland about 397 million years ago. And they left behind distinctive footprints, which have turned back the clock on the evolution of these landlubbers.
BRESHEET 3 months ago
The land creatures likely had bodies shaped somewhat like crocodiles, with fin-like tails and stumpy legs. And some of them were pretty big, reaching up to about 10 feet (3 meters) in length, the researchers said. livesciencedotcom
BRESHEET 3 months ago
@TXatheist He's not really worth anyone's time. It's not immediately obvious though so when he gets aggressive with me I go and give people a heads up where he is so they don't waste time on him too. He's been thoroughly exposed. If someone still wants to debate him....they now know what they're dealing with.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 3 months ago
@all If four-legged animals existed 18 million years earlier, then Tiktaalik can’t be the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be
grfield1 3 months ago
@grfield1 What? Dinosaurs and mammals existed 18 million years ago.
TXatheist 3 months ago
@TXatheist can u read...18 million years earlier...not 18 million years ago...
grfield1 2 months ago
@grfield1 Can you read that 18 M years earlier still doesn't mean this wasn't a transitional fossil
TXatheist 2 months ago
@TXatheist it is accepted science now that it does NOT reperesent a traisitional form. TOE is so fluid and shape shifting that some are now claiming that everything is a transitional form....ridiculous.
grfield1 2 months ago
@grfield1 No, it is accepted that evolution is a fact and people wish to try and deny evolution to validate their imaginary friend, god.
TXatheist 2 months ago
@TXatheist TOE is a theory in huge trouble especially with information science emerging. Good luck to u as your faith in TOE collapses.
grfield1 2 months ago
@grfield1 Information science? Is that how they are repackaging creationism ID now? When you get christian Francis Collins to deny evolution I will listen to you.
TXatheist 2 months ago
@TXatheist All creationists are IDer's but not all IDers are creationists. ID does not attempt to identify the designer because that is outside the ability of the scietific method. Creationists obswerve the world thru the lens of the Bible. IDer's only observe the data that we know in the present. Information systems have never been know to arrange themselves at any time in history.
grfield1 2 months ago
@grfield1 No real big difference just like YEC and OEC have a great deal in common but false ideas for the most part. The idea there is a designer is outside science. Muslim creationists use the other book from god, the koran. Data? What data do we have that shows design...scientifically. What information system causes a seed from a weed to land in my yard and create a dandelion cause I didn't put it there in my lush green yard? Was it god or just the wind blowing seeds? Just nature.
TXatheist 2 months ago
@TXatheist signature in the cell.com where we did the seeds or nature come from. Life was either natural or supernatural there is no other alternative.
grfield1 2 months ago
@grfield1 I am not going to guess what I'm supposed to figure out on some website. I've read all about ID and I'm asking you. Life was natural as there is nothing from the supernatural except in story books.
What data do we have that shows design...scientifically?
TXatheist 2 months ago
@grfield1 Pathetic! You are like a Flat Earther laughing at geologists for saying the Earth is round because we now know it is a slightly flattened ellipsoid. Even to refer to the Polish data requires you to accept the existence of primitive tetrapods 397 million years ago - yet Creationists try to deny the existence of primitive tetrapods at all and claim the Earth is 6,000 years old. The Polish data ADDS to the proof for evolution of land animals from fish, rather than undermining it.
EqualAndFree 2 months ago
I was once a fish, i decided i wanted to become human so i grew arms and legs, after much practice, here i am today
PusStephen 11 months ago
@wild0hawk I'm an atheist and I support evolution however...see on youtbe....TRANSTLANTIC COMEDY GOLD and TRANSTLANTIC COMEDY GOLD II !!!
trans is the shame of all atheists everywhere.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 11 months ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny well u got some good humour, i'll giv u that dude, even though u confused my balls :(
wild0hawk 11 months ago
@wild0hawk Ha...it's not from me. Some people take screenshots of his more amusing idiocies. I just enjoy passing it around because he stalks and annoys me.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 11 months ago
@transtlantic Thank you for trying to educate wild0hawk who seems to love the phrase out your arse more than learning.
TXatheist 11 months ago
@transtlantic oh no, now ur communicateing out of ur anul cavity, thats some amzeing evolutionary process u going through lmao, now u obsessively keep pulling this AB resistance out ur arse wen ive allready told u that micoevolution is a fact, genes and dna's allways had a mechanism of adaptations for survival,but micoevolution in no way shape or form has any explanation for macroevolution unless genes and dna,s were allready in a safe existence b4 the primodial soup
wild0hawk 11 months ago
@wild0hawk
AB resistance is also macroevolution. dumbfuck.
genes are DNA, dumbfuck. and mutations is not adaptation. adaptation doesn't explain the origin of the traits. dumhfuck.
Microevolution is the same as macroevolution.
transtlantic 11 months ago
@transtlantic u just a pulled a museum of intermediatry forms right out of ur arse, u must a darwinists dream come true lmao
wild0hawk 11 months ago
Except the modern mudskipper shares very similar morphology. And they are just the wrong age. Tiktaalik, could just as easily be a member of the subfamily Oxudercinae.
imikewillrockyou 11 months ago
@imikewillrockyou That sounds like the mudskipper is a descendant of tiktaalik via evolution.
TXatheist 11 months ago
@TXatheist The problem I see is Tiktaalik so similar to a modern mudskipper it's hard for me to believe it isn't one. It's just larger. But so were most animals in the past.
imikewillrockyou 11 months ago
Sorry man, even if you showed that to them they would jump back to their next line of defense that either a) its all one big massive conspiracy involving scientists from all different diciplines and all over the world, or b) god put tiktaalik and archeopteryx there to confuse us (which would be an unbelievably stupid thing for an all powerful god to do). Ive determined that there is no winning with creationists.
s5b678 1 year ago
now creationists will probably say "but what's in between? There's a gap between those creatures, what's there?"
That's how it will go until creationists open a book on evolution and actually learn.
JonBj2 1 year ago
Lol what a joke. The hind quarter of tiktaalic was never found yet they pretended it had hind legs bc their money was running out. Pathetic that this fake science will make evidence from nothing to perpetuate it.
9pt9 1 year ago
@9pt9 Money was running out? Cite evidence to support that claim.
TXatheist 1 year ago
@9pt9 They gave it hindlimbs because earlier lobe-finned fish such as eusthenopteron and pandericthys had bony, muscular hindfins so we can extrapolate that tiktaalik, a lobe finned fish which we can see shared features of both fish and tetrapods, and thus is evolutionary vloser to tetrapods than eusthenopteron, would have had hindfins that were more limb-like.
axorozzas 1 year ago
@axorozzas So take half of a fossil and pretend it had morphology that is unconfirmed and tout it as one of the greatest transitional finds ever? Sounds like a desparate grab for evidence. There should be MILLIONS of obvious transtions if the theory was correct.
9pt9 1 year ago
@9pt9 Well, there are, maybe not millions, but certainly hundreds of obvious transitionals. Certainly you don't expect to find a fossil for every single creature that ever lived, right? A fossil is extremely rare. Also, only 6 skeletons of T-Rex have been found.. you think those are the only 6 that ever lived?
In Tiktaalik's case, the most important feature are the front fins, which have wrists... something no other fish does. It also had a neck, like no other fish, and shoulder girdles.
danoso0931 1 year ago
How does this fossil argue against the archeopteryx?
ManDudeYeah 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
youFAIL /watch?v=-Htheuxtv9o
Hey don't you know homology recapitulates creation by design? our bones in arms and legs are similar because they were created simultaneously :)
Please avoid irrational or faith based replies ;)
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
How is this fossil not transitional? Of course it is. It has characteristics of both fish and amphibians. If you say it is a fish, then you have to explain the features that it posses that no other living fish does, like the neck and the wrists. Also, it isn't a modern amphibian, since it has gills and scales. It is perfectly situated half-way between fish and amphibian
danoso0931 1 year ago
The fact that we are all related takes the pressure off a lot of fundamentalists that are dorkin' farm animals...so it really is a win win...not an epic fail....
tik
sixtiksix 1 year ago 3
every one google evolutionnews and the name of this fossil. they go on to say that this fossil is not the missing link that PBS made it out to be. actually ran by scientist and wrote by scientist. Epic Fail
silentpimpsmak 1 year ago
@silentpimpsmak And if you to evolutionnews be aware they are xian fundamentalists that can't get any public university to support their xian creationism repacked as false science. The discovery institute is run by xian nutjobs and fail at life.
TXatheist 1 year ago 7
There can be over a million minute hooks on one feather. Nothing which is half way between a feather and a reptile's scale has ever been found. An animal with half developed wings could neither run nor fly properly and would be quickly eliminated. Finally, Archaeopteryx is irrelevant, as a fossil of a normal bird has been found in strata of same dating as Archeopteryx.
TheRalph09 1 year ago
The idea that it has feathers is the part you not getting. Prolonged gliding is beneficial. Contrary to your misunderstand birds and dinosaurs did live together which is why Archaeopteryx is valid.
TXatheist 1 year ago
@TXatheist lol, if that is a transitional fossil, would that fossil should exhibit imperfect feather-like characteristics, mate don't base everything you read or watch is true, research first
TheRalph09 1 year ago
ralph, imperfect feather? That's not even a category. The feather is typical but just a few are there. I have researched, that's how I realize evolution is a fact and god is imaginary.
TXatheist 1 year ago
@TXatheist evolutionnews. org posted on their own website that this fossil proves nothing sorry Fail.
silentpimpsmak 1 year ago
@silentpimpsmak The Discovery Institute is not a scientific rebuttal to this, they are xian nutjobs, sorry fail.
TXatheist 1 year ago
@TXatheist The Discovery Institute provided the "expert" witnesses to counter the evolutionists claims at this trial in Dover, Pa.
They lost. The conservative judge (appointed by Bush) heard the evidence and concluded that ID is creationism.
One of the Discovery Institute witnesses claimed he has "no preference regarding what children are taught in public schools" because HIS kids attend private school. Really? I care what kids are taught. Why doesn't he care? What a prick, yes?
fumanxxx 1 year ago
@TheRalph09 oh really? what species would that bird in the same strata as Archaeopteryx be? what birds existed 145mya?
Half a feather is half a feather's worth of insulation, and half a feather's worth MORE insulation than a scale provides A half a feather's worth of insulation gives that much more drag when a Archaeopteryx falls from a tree, giving that much more chance of survival. I don't know about you, but if i was falling from a tree i'd rather have half a feather than none at all.
Myriagonvaltorix 1 year ago
This bird is claimed to be the link between reptiles and birds. But it had perfectly formed feathers which are very complex in design.
TheRalph09 1 year ago
But only a few feathers which is a nice evolutionary intermediate form just like the theory predicts, no design.
TXatheist 1 year ago
The fact that you still haven't taken this video down is an embarrasement to evolutionists everywhere...
tangentS17 1 year ago
tangent, au contrair what is embarrassing is your idea is that the video should come down.
TXatheist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's not a transitional... Panderichthys, the predecessor of Tikky had front fins that were more powerful than the rear fins. Since the early tetrapods (including acanthostega) were powered by their rear legs/lobes, it stands to reason that a transitional between pan. and acanthostega would be powered by rear lobes (or at least show a visible transfer of power). However, Tikky's was a front-wheel-drive creature...its front lobes were bigger and more powerful than the back.
tangentS17 1 year ago
Comment removed
jouc12 1 year ago
Comment removed
jouc12 1 year ago
Let's suppose that god (no specific religion) does not exist.
Now, we need to find an alternative to the creation of the universe. Let's called this event (The event that started the universe several billion years ago) "X", since there are dozens of different theories.
Now, how did X come into existence? The only three possibilities are:
1. It came from nothing.
2. It came from something.
3. It existed forever.
So. Which one did "X" come from?
Countyp0 2 years ago
The first option, it came from nothing, is not logically possible. Something cannot come from nothing. There is no logical explanation for this. So this is not an option.
Now the only two possibilities are 2 and 3. If you answer 2, you simply start over. Let's call the product of answer 2, "Y". So, where did "Y" come from? 1 isn't possible, and 2 leads you to the same question.
Countyp0 2 years ago
This leaves us with 3, it existed forever. For all time. If you believe this, how can you say that there is no god? How is it possible that ever single one of the trillion events that leads us to our present happened by pure chance? That we are the result of a cosmic accident? The universe begs for intelligent design. The complexity of the eye is amazing, and humans cannot even crack the DNA code. How could it happen by accident? The answer is it cannot. That is not a logical response.
Countyp0 2 years ago
@Countyp0
What? Just because something is eternal, it follows that there must be a God?
Of course not. Even if we said that the universe was eternal, that doesn't mean that there must ALSO be a God who is ALSO eternal.
Evolution is not 'pure chance'... it happens following natural laws. Think of a rainbow... how did the colors sort themselves? Was it pure chance, or was it built that way by someone? The correct answer is neither... it follows the laws of nature, which produce order.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond dont waste ur time the eye has been debunked many times we have animals alive with every step in the eye evolution no evidence would ever convince creotards like that
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@Countyp0 what u heard of genetics we have sequenced many animals dna we have the complete human genome many other complete genomes no the logical answer is to say i dont know not ohhh god did it
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@Countyp0
In the first place, the first option actually isn't logically impossible, because some scientists think than out universes was started by a different universe. In a separate universe, the laws of thermodynamics might not apply, and so something could truly come from nothing in this new place.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
And posting lies on the internet is deceitful.
You should be ashamed.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
eric, you should tell all the xians that say god is real that cause they are the deceivers. Pity them and hopefully they will find the shame they deserve
TXatheist 2 years ago
Tiktaalik, a fish that can wade through mud or walk on sand, just like today's mud skipper and the turtle.
They say it had lungs, so does the lungfish of today.
An intermediate between fish and amphibians? No. Just a certain type of fish. Not evidence for evolution at all.
Hey why not say fish evolved into birds? Look at the flying fish called Exocoetidae. Just another type of fish, not an intermediate.
Evolution is speculation and incorrect assumptions.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
eric, if it's not transitional why does it have a mammal skeleton and not regular ray fins?
TXatheist 2 years ago
@TXatheist
You could also ask why some fish have wings or why a certain mammal has a duck bill. It's the way God created them.
Just because it doesn't fit into modern day classifications of what it should be, doesn't mean it's a transitional form.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
eric, only in fairy tales did god create anything. Actually it does and it can today also. You are a transitional form of your parents. That's what happens when chromosomes align, you create a altered specimen. Very, very, very similar...but different.
TXatheist 2 years ago
@TXatheist
I don't know any fairy tales where God creates things. I know of true historical accounts where He does though.
I'm not a transitional form of my parents, I'm a reproduction of them. No matter how many times humans reproduce, we'll still remain humans. Just as we have done for 6000 years.
Of course we all change. Our dna is unravelling, we are getting dumber and weaker, which of course is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A natural law of a law maker. Who is this law maker?
ericinnit1 2 years ago
eric, the bible is a fairy tale where god is real and creates things. It's available in your library or bookstore. I know you don't understand the difference between history and make believe. A reproduction would be exactly like your parents but because you are a altered mutation you are a evolutionary transition. No, in evolution hominids brains got larger so they are the same as 1 M years ago. We are getting dumber? Prove it. Natural law is from nature, not a who. No who needed.
TXatheist 2 years ago
So Julius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, King David, King Solomon etc are all fairy tales? Right ok. Maybe you should tell historians that then.
Nature isn't a being that creates laws, if it is, maybe you should introduce him. to us all.
Today, science is slowly catching up with the knowledge written down in the Bible thousands of years ago. There is a stone wall in Peru that contains stones so big that they cannot be moved by modern machinery. How did they move them?
ericinnit1 2 years ago
eric, historians don't say caeser, PP or king david cured people by touch or floated off to heaven or magically diappeared from their graves. The supernatural part is the fairy tale. Nature is right outside and you can introduce yourself but it's not a him or her, it's a thing. Today, more are abandoning religion thanks to the ability to get information like the internet. Dry wall of Peru, The Incas were masters of this, in which blocks of stone are cut to fit together without mortar.
TXatheist 2 years ago
Oh, so only the supernatural part of the Bible isn't real, the rest is? Lol how is only some of it reliable and some not when it all comes from God?
The bottom line is that nature cannot create laws.
Yes the Incas masters at their wall building and it seems more masterful about it than any man alive today. Yet you say we are smarter than them?
ericinnit1 2 years ago
Only a few parts are reliable/accurate. How? Like Superman's supernatural abilities are fake the idea a regular guy lived in New York and BECAME Superman with super abilities. Fiction borrows from non-fiction at times. Nature can't create laws, but man can use science to describe nature like gravity and cosmology. Building a wall doesn't make you smarter and I never said you were smarter than them.
TXatheist 2 years ago
I never said that you said that I'm smarter than the Incas, I said you think we are smarter than them, as in today's humanity.
Anyway, you're off on a tangent. This is about your video being lies, not the Bible. I know what I believe is faith, but you don't think what you believe is faith, when it is.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
It's you that needs to pay attention, I never said what you are referring to. The lies are not this video, but are you and others saying that god is real and the bible is anything but folklore or mythology. If someone doesn't admit it's myth then they are the liars. Faith is believing what you know ain't true-Mark Twain.
TXatheist 2 years ago
@TXatheist
Mark Twain was a heretic and a Freemason (satanic cult). If you value his opinion, then you really are in trouble.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
Twain was a heretic? good for him, me too because I call literal religion what it is, a fairy tale for the naive. Freemason's are cult members? Wow, a typical arrogant xian that thinks he's got a non-cult and others are cult followers. If you don't appreciate one of the greatest authors of that era you aren't just in trouble, you're uncultured and ignorant.
TXatheist 2 years ago
@TXatheist
You want author's quotes?
A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.
C. S. Lewis
Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.
C. S. Lewis
God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.
C. S. Lewis
ericinnit1 2 years ago
No, C.S. Lewis was a famous fiction writer and then became a xian writer...how ironic it worked out so well for him.
TXatheist 2 years ago
@TXatheist
Why do you keep going on about xian? Is that your way of say Christian? Xian means something else.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
xian is an accepted abbreviation.
TXatheist 2 years ago
@ericinnit1 your assumption that the 'bill' on a platypus is the same as a duck is incorrect. It is similar in exterior appearance alone. As for flying fish's relation to birds, it is an example of convergent evolution. gliding is useful for many reasons, be it escape, travel, or predation and has been adopted by many different animal groups. Flying fish aren't closely related to birds, and we have many more reasons for that than just how they look
Myriagonvaltorix 1 year ago
@ericinnit1 internal layout of organs, skeletal structures, what it uses for locomotion, energy, etc. its digestive system, the composition of the organs themselves and even the kinds of excrement they produce can all tell us where animals fit on the evolutionary timeline. In fact we can determine this with such accuracy that some of the only places we have trouble is in the earliest microorganisms, where horizontal gene transfer is present and it forms a gray area of sorts.
Myriagonvaltorix 1 year ago
someone explain to me how this is transitional.. so we found an animal that looks half land animal and half water animal... we dont know that evolved... all we know is thqat it is a new animal that we havnt seen before... evolution therefore is assumed.
BigG99 2 years ago
big, no, what we know is this fish has similar bone structure to mammals and not a ray fin fish. When you date it and see that it has the ability to be in water and on land you see what evolution theorizes, that some creature was able to leave the water and begin the process of land mammal hierarchy to the point much later where you get man.
TXatheist 2 years ago
what gives it the ability to be on land? can it breath air and water?
also again the point is similar structures dont assume anything.. we see that all over our planet in different animals, not connected by evolutional ancestry.. so again i wonder how one can label this a transitional fossil without making an assumption?
BigG99 2 years ago
lobe fins versus ray fins(the bone structure). Actually they don't assume anything but when they are dated and aged and fall in the evolutionary hierachy they become an evolution fact. Where do you see Tiktaalik all over the planet today?
TXatheist 2 years ago
so the bones structures are similar.. once again tell me how that proves equates evolution? im just interested. its assumed that similar structure means ancestry, yet its never been observed by us. and just because its gone doesnt mean it evolved.. do you realize how many species go extinct every day? dating is one thing assuming evolution is another isnt it?
BigG99 2 years ago
Right now I"m telling you to read up on evolution. Observed? If you mean by humans then no because we can't go back in time. But a fossil is observation. No, you are right there, extinction doesn't mean much to evolution but the fact that some creature that has mammal bones and not fish bones but lived in the water confirms that portion of evolutionary theory. 99.9% of every species that lived is extinct. Dating is putting a fossil in a geological aging chart.
TXatheist 2 years ago
but thats the problem we arent observing fossils.. this is one of very few strong transitional fossils? darwin said that if evolution were true, we would be seeing a rediculous amount of transitional fossils, and it would be overwhelming. we are not seeing that!
BigG99 2 years ago
It depends on what YOU mean by transitional. You are transitional fossil from your parents to your kids. I'm not sure we will agree then because fossilization is a very rare occurrence. None of the fossils we find contradict evolution. We see that.
TXatheist 2 years ago
actually thats not true... take coalecanth fish for instance.... its a fish that was discovered to having lived 70 million years ago and was thought to be extinct... they are now finding them alive and totaly untouched by evolutionary process. same with army ants over a span of 100 million years.... not to mention the problem of polystrate fossils. fossils that move between the geologic colunm
BigG99 2 years ago
I can see you aren't going to read anything but anti-evolution so I'm about done here. They thought it was extinct because we couldn't find them but once we did then we found a few a very certain species of coalecanth but it wasn't like they were easily detectable so some did live then and some new species live now. Polystrate when found on different layers because of platetectonics or erosion is not a geology problem. Read up and not creation stuff.
TXatheist 2 years ago
actually the point of good study is to read both literature for and aginst such a theory. ist called good logic and critical thinking. I have been studying richard dawkins and many other evolutionists and my questions that you have read still remain. I am finding in my study some very basic fatal flaws such as the assumptions that i have already told you. im not trying to start a fight or be ignorant, my questions i believe are valid. have we ever seen erosion cause polystrate?
BigG99 2 years ago
big, very good point. I don't wish to be the "teacher" in this but I hope you will continue to reading. I do have one question. Do you read the skeptics of religion also? Like Dan Barker as just one example or for a more in depth guy, George Smith.
TXatheist 2 years ago
yes i have read dan barker... im always studying.... i find major problems with dans arguments as well but he had a good try anyways.
BigG99 2 years ago
Dan has points you disagreed with or couldn't get? Please explain cause I'm more up on atheism than tiktaalik
TXatheist 2 years ago
o boy i dont know where to even begin.... his books understandably are often fantasy based on some historical accuracy.. i personally enjoyed his books despite my disagreements.... maybe we can talk about his view on the council of nicea or the use of nostic gospels... hes not really an academic writer is he.
BigG99 2 years ago
Wow, maybe you could start with how he's wrong and not an academic compared to the knuckleheads that try to say jesus was real and that had it not been for Constantine declaring xianity the official religion that all the bible thumpers would be worshipping a different imaginary friend, mithra.
TXatheist 2 years ago
ya constantine deffinatley had a political agenda thats for sure... so are you saying that you deny the existence of jesus or the deity of jesus?
BigG99 2 years ago
both, I realize there is only hearsay and forged docs for the mythical jc.
TXatheist 2 years ago
you beleiev in forged documents? i dont think any scholars have found this ever.... not to mention there are over 10 000 copies of the original epistles found in the bible, originating from churches all over asia and europe and israel... and they match eachother almost always 100% .. thats hard evidence to refute and hard to forge without major obvious problems.... which biblical and historical scholars are not finding. can you point me to a forged document that you know of?
BigG99 2 years ago
Josephus works were altered by Eusebius and scholars acknowledge. Copies of fairy tales is evidence fairy tales exist.
TXatheist 2 years ago
well Jesphus is not even the issue.. its extra biblical so it doesnt matter what happened to that. thats still debated hotily i might add.
also, calling a text fairy tale, is no evidence for its falsity its not a logical statement. I could browns works fairy tales, doesnt mean its true...
BigG99 2 years ago
no, it's established by almost all scholars that Eusebius altered Josephus. Uh, jack and the bean stalk is a fairy tale...perfect analogy to the bible. When you write about fictional characters you can interchange fictional with fairy tale. The bible is mostly fiction, mostly fairy tale.
TXatheist 2 years ago
on what grounds or evidence do you claim that the bible is fairy tale?
BigG99 2 years ago
Beyond a few tribes and cities the supernatural in the bible are just as unfounded as Jack and the beanstalk. On what grounds do you think it's not a fairy tale with regard to the supernatural?
TXatheist 2 years ago
well there are many reasons.. one because it is written as a historical document according to greek and hebrew scholars. its not written as a metaphor or as a poetic book when it speak in regard to most supernatural events. Also there very little contradiction if at all in the bible which is incredible for a book written over 1600 years with 40 authors... its unmatched anywhere else in the world. so its claims gain some due credit and observation.
BigG99 2 years ago
Big, most scholars(Alan Dundes) do realize folklore was very popular then. It was not historical writing at all with regard to most of the bible or do you wish to claim Adam and Eve were running around, the ark, a global flood during man's era, 2 or 7 of each kind fit on this ark, that jc healed lepers by touch? The men at the council of nicea voted which books made the bible and which didn't which is why there are contradictions.
TXatheist 2 years ago
but what you dont realize is that writing styles in hebrew and greek determined its style not its message. I took ancient greek... also your wrong about the councel of nicea they didnt vote on books of the bible at all.. look it up. they actually were affirming the deity of CHrist and as to whether christ and the father are one of the same esence or substance... as well as basic doctrines.. Jesus's miracles to by the way were written in historical form.
BigG99 2 years ago
So in your faulted learning and severe bias did you learn the greeks wrote many mythology stories besides the jc story? You are wrong if you don't think the council of nicea was the timeframe for which 66 books became the bible. The council ALSO declared the trinity valid because prior to that it wasn't accepted but it was not a way to make xianity monotheism instead of pagan polytheism(though it is). The miracles were written as folklore and parable, not actual history. I have looked it up.
TXatheist 2 years ago
actually it was written in greek not BY the greeks.. it was the buisness language of the day. so your argument is mute and without point.. was still written by jews. further more you need to learn history. the council of nicea is dosumented and what was discussed is documented and the books of the bible were not discussed... and regardless fo what you looked up, you didnt obviously go to any credible sources because the majority of biblical and hebrew schiolars disagree with you.
BigG99 2 years ago
No, my point is valid that greeks did write folklore and plagiarized mythology as noted by Alan Dundes so it's not moot. The Greek scriptures were written by jews? What you need is to stop learning from fundies who teach you religion from a pro-religious viewpoint. I gave you Alan Dundes and now I'm giving you Jesus Seminar scholar Earl Doherty so I"m giving you actual scholars and not heavily biased fundy scholars that can't even conceptualize god is imaginary.
TXatheist 2 years ago
no your point is extreme not valid.. the Jesus seminars are a joke and are hardly considered scholarly in the slightest. The greeks did not write the new testament. Nor the Old one... how do we know? easily historical tract authorship. Your views and the people you claim to be scholars are fringe and extreme.. where as the majority of credible scholars can tear there arguments down without so much as an effort.. you need to read something more backed by research. not guesses of personal bias.
BigG99 2 years ago
No, you are another fundy follower who doesn't want history but religious revisionism as history. Greek mythology is a prominent genre for a reason, it's what many greeks did. Only in your little mind are my valid points fringe because you've been spoon fed xian bias so long you don't know any better. You need to stop reading xian historians, many lie because of their bias. I'm currently reading Chris Rodda and how the big liar David Barton revises history to fit his xian bias.
TXatheist 2 years ago
@TXatheist
We have come from God, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming 'sub-creator' and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall."
- J.R.R. Tolkien
As you can see, Tolkien believed in God and the historical accounts of Genesis.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
no actually i read all sorts of schollars. but the gentleman you just mentioned was rediculed by his peers for being extreme in his theories about folklore and mythology. Alan dundes was not respected for his work generally he was scrutinized. It wasant until he gave the university a huge grant did he get a specific honorable mention for doing so. He is fringe. you claim i look at xion bias scholars. do you even know what that means? Your scholars are not credible, mine are. like dr White.
BigG99 2 years ago
Nope, your people are just sell outs to the fundies and don't actually back up the christ idea but because it's accepted that xianity was real they are kept. Gerd Ludemann started this 20+ years ago and was bumped out by the NY college system though no one could show him his errors. Yours are sell outs who were schooled by prior pro-xian teachers who had to conform. It's ok, jesus and xianity are just myths.
TXatheist 2 years ago
your right so the thousands of ancient documents that back up our theories and the archological evidence in conjuction with that is all a big lie... gotcha... (sarcasm) your a wierd conspiracy theorist and i have studied many of the documents myself, and im sorry to say but your deluded. you cant fool thousands of scholars who are in agreement of the same things.. sorry thats not a conspiracy, thats called a fact..
BigG99 2 years ago
Please show me one of the documents that verifies a global flood during man's era, the ark, serpents or donkeys or burning bushes talk, that someone can heal lepers by touch. Your another fool for religion that learns the pro-xian revisionist side and can't admit it. I"m not the one with an imaginary friend so it's not be that's deluded. You still never told me a full scholar's name because your claims and their's won't line up. Sorry, you pick out the easy points for your pro-xian view
TXatheist 2 years ago
nice how you mention the oldest texts in the bible but stear clear of the newtestament where the documents and evidence is overwhelming... And if the new testament is true then we can trust the old as well because the new testament confirms the old in its teachings and in its prophecies by the way... here are some scholars, check your inbox.
BigG99 2 years ago
nice how you gloss over the supernatural nonsense in the bible to make your points. I think the idea of jc curing lepers by touch is greek(there is no nt to the jews or me, it's just one book) and ou gloss over that cause you know it's bunk. No, just because some parts are true in fiction doesn't make all fiction true. If you are going to send me a list it better be relating to the supernatural bunk being proven. No one denies a man could lie and wonder around jerusalem and say he's god
TXatheist 2 years ago
i didnt gloss over anything and the new testament was written by jews, i could give you a biography of every author who wrote the new testament and there backgrounds, where there from, how oldd they were.. the detail is stagering. and its multiple books obviously because of the different writing styles.. they use the same techniques in modern forensics... its a fact.. you are looney, straight up crazy.. your views are sooo bogus i cant take them seriously at all. read my list again. they know.
BigG99 2 years ago
Ok, tell me the authors name of the gospel writers, their age and their ancestry motor mouth. You are another revisionist xian that only reads the pro-xian nonsense and can't think critically at all. You are straight up insulting but that's theism for you. Nice insults while you hide behind a monitor. I read your list, I want their view on the supernatural but you can't do it.
TXatheist 2 years ago
Matthew was a Galilean and the son of Alpheus. He collected taxes from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas. His Tax Office was located in Capharnaum ..
there is one author, do you want the others.... see this really isnt hard..... and i could list for you the views of those authors i gave you but who has the time i sent you like 200 bible scholars.... go do some reading i have already done the rearch. the point was to show the overwhelming amount of people in the field who are scholars.
BigG99 2 years ago
go to wikipedia motor mouth and look up gospel of matthew and learn....However most scholars today believe that "canonical Matt was originally written in Greek by a non eyewitness whose name is unknown to us and who depended on sources like Mark and Q" Now you are the one who can stop babbling and go do some reading cause you don't know what you are talking about.
TXatheist 2 years ago
ha ha did you seriously consult wikipedia lol.... thats hilarious.. do you know that wikipedia isnt accepted in academic papers due to its either bias or inconsitency.. isnt that interesting.... and by the way i have consulted experts in the field .. people who have studied there whole lives and one of the world language experts believes that its a first hand account.. once again you manage to pull out the extreme view.. very interesting.
BigG99 2 years ago
wiki is just a summary of what my point was, that matt isn't the author. Way to dodge my accurate point and act like your point is now valid. Experts are not the ones you consult, you consult xian biased folks. The extreme view is that god is real and yet 75% of Americans think god is real. Very sad and you are only contributing to that ignorance.
TXatheist 2 years ago
ususally its the extreme view that is the minority.... as you so obviously exhibit... if you dont think mathew is the author then your research is horrible and i dont know how to even respond to such ignorance and denial.... its like you dont actually care about whats true at all... mind you the bible does say that in this time people will not stand for sound doctrine and will exchange the truth for a lie.. your fullfilling prophecy ha ha.. ironic isnt it lol?
BigG99 2 years ago
Right, just like 93% of the national academy of scientists are atheist/agnostic because extreme(extremely educated really). It's you that is the ignorant one, the majority don't think it was matt but most uneducated people do. That is what is true and exhibited by you. The bible says lots of mind controlling things that doesn't like us thinking for ourselves. It's a great means of controlling the masses and the politicians and church leaders know it.
TXatheist 2 years ago
so why do you say the majority think ti wasnt mathew.. i have read the majority lol.... your just throwing out fake facts now.. your brutal.
BigG99 2 years ago
Once again you run your mouth with smears(brutal)and don't even know most scholars acknowledge the guy who made up matt simply plagiarized the book of mark. That's the fact you don't know so it's not me that's the fake with unwarranted ego for false knowledge.
TXatheist 2 years ago
your such a nub i took 4 a whole semester on that very topic, your all over the place..... he didnt plagarize, they arent sure at all quite frankly. its guessed that there was a document that we dont have yet.. mark is thought to have the original gospel.. but thats all based on textual criticism... learn the ins and outs of that, then come talk to me about facts and understanding the text... i wrote two papers on it.. and you call me ignorant.. pff, you have no idea what your talking about.
BigG99 2 years ago
big, ask for your money back cause you have a xian revisionist education and know only the biased data which is only contributing to the dumbing down of people to believe god is real. I'm sure you got what you deserved on the papers, an F.
TXatheist 2 years ago
actually i was a straight A student. that was because of my strong research from both Pro fundamental christians and the ones you speak of as well... sorry but i have said it before and ill say it again, your views are fringe and typically unaccepted in the academic world of biblical scholarship....
BigG99 2 years ago
And I'll say it again, pro-fundamentalists are not credible for the most part. They are tolerated.
TXatheist 2 years ago
1 of 3
You saym "Next time someone says there is no transitional fossil or argues against archaeopteryx show them tiktaalik." Guess what...
"Ancient Four-Legged Beasts Leave Their Mark" (ScienceNOW, January 6, 2010)
"Researchers have uncovered the earliest evidence of four-legged animals. Footprints and tracks preserved in the mud of an abandoned quarry in southeastern Poland date back 395 million years, UPENDING accepted thinking about when and where land animals first emerged...
AA32m7io1 2 years ago 2
2 of 3
"In some of the prints, individual digits can be made out. That means land animals already had feet 9 million years BEFORE the finlike structures of Tiktaalik and Panderichthys. In addition, some of the tracks show an animal walking with a diagonal, coordinated gait impossible for finned creatures...
AA32m7io1 2 years ago 2
3 of 3
"Other paleontologists are taken aback by the discovery of the tracks. 'We thought we'd pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods,' says Jennifer Clack of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. 'We have to RETHINK the whole thing.'"
Oops!
AA32m7io1 2 years ago 2
AA32, which means the adjust the timescale, not the idea of evolution itself. Thanks for understanding that adjusting the timescale means they will now be able to insert even more species in the historic timeline.
TXatheist 2 years ago
2 of 2
"Evolution may take giant leaps" (PhysOrg, December 11, 2009)
"The work suggests that natural selection may not be the cause of speciation, which Pagel said 'really goes against the grain' for scientists who have a Darwinian view of evolution. The model that provided the best fit for the data is SURPRISINGLY INCOMPATIBLE with the idea that speciation is a result of many small small events, Pagel said."
So much for Darwin's theory of gradualism.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago 2
Dr Pagel said that the research shows speciation is the result of rare events in the environment, such as genetic mutations, a shift in climate, or a mountain range rising up. Over the long term new species are formed at a constant rate, rather than the variable rate Pagel's team expected, but the constant rates are different for different groups of species...which means species don't have to change gradually but if their environment does they can adapt thru evolution. Cambrian explosion also.
TXatheist 2 years ago
1 of 2
The point is, tiktaalik is NOT the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be. So this video is no longer valid in its claim.
Not only does this cause yet another adjustment to evolution's timescale, but it also means a new transitional fossil must be found that predates these findings.
The video also claims we should find intermediate fossils of part fish and land animals. However, that's not what Gould/Eldredge (Punk Eek) and the following article indicates happens...
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Which part is wrong? That it's in a different part of the timescale? i know you only have 500 characters but you have to show exactly why it's wrong other than the aging. The universe use to be 13 B years old and we have been able to calculate better at 14.5 B but that doesn't mean much concerning any other cosmology
TXatheist 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Footprints show tetrapods walked on land 18m years earlier than thought according to Fossil footprints found in southern poland lead to a radical rethink of the evolution of the first four-legged animals or 'tetrapods'
Until now, experts had believed that the earliest tetrapod fossils are 375 million years old
However, the footprint tracks are 10 million years older than the oldest elpistostegid body fossils. Suggesting they are NOT transitional forms.
Professor Per Ahlberg and Jenny Clack
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
@MissionWorldPeace
Transitional does not mean Ancestoral.
Tiktaalik still counts as a transitional fossil, and would still count as transitional even if our only example was 1 year old.
The footprints suggest that the Tiktaalik is not the LCA between fish and amphibians, but no one in their right mind would have said it was since you cannot produce evidence for LCA status.
In other words, no fossil can be called an LCA since it's currently impossible to demonstrate. cont....
kandtell 2 years ago
But as I said, it's still a fabulous Transitional Fossil because it has features belonging to both fish and amphibians.
Extant Lungfish also have features belonging to both fish and amphibians, so they count as Transitional too even though they are alive today.
kandtell 2 years ago
So make-believe this, one fossil of some critter and the transition has been found? Modern day science can be as tricky as dirty politics. The voice over says it showed how evolution took place, no it did nothing of the kind. Whales being mammals does not mean we must imagine them starting as land critters, its more likely they came from Mars, transitioned into space beings and then to Earth because the oceans on Mars dried up. Our science needs to be real not make-believe.
theloosegoose333 2 years ago
Not one fossil thousands of fossils.
Pakicetus-Nalacetus-Ichtyclestes-Gandakasia-Ambolocetus-Himalayacetus-Attockicetus-Remingtonocetus-Dalanistes-kutchicetus-Andrewshipius-Indocetus-Qaisracetus-Takracetus-Artiocetus-Babiacetus-Protocetus-Eocetus-Georgiacetus-Natchitochia-Dorudon-Ancalacetus-Zygorhiza-Saghacetus-Chrysocetus-Gaviacetus-Pontogeneus-Basilosaurus-Basiloterus->Modern whale. All of these are related with just tiny tiny changes between them, but from first to last a very huge change.
baldurus1 2 years ago
It's like watching a blank canvas, completely blank. Then you come back the next day and you see a tiny tiny dot on the canvas, the next day another tiny dot. And on day 1,000,000 you have a complete painting. A creationist have calculated that changing from Pakicetus to modern whale would take 50,000 changes. Thats just 1 tiny change every 2,000 years, guess how many changes a modern dog has had in 2,000 years from wolf. Game, set and match. Or check mate!
baldurus1 2 years ago
Please tell me why an air breathing mammal would live in the sea and look like a fish?
MrColuber 2 years ago
Wow. That's pretty uninformed right there. Tiktaalik is impressive, but not alone. If you are trying to find fault with evolution, you have all of your work ahead of you, my uneducated commenter.
Coryscott5 2 years ago