Well I guess the discussion is finally settled, upon recent confirmation by paleontologists that archaeopteryx was a Dinosaur and ancestor of the Xiaontigia dinosaur. This confirrms creationists claim that it was either a dino or a bird but not a transitional form. Checkmate!!!!
I guess, if Archaeopteryx was discovered today after Microraptor, Rahonavis and Anchiornis, creationists would say: it's just another 100% Theropod and not related to birds at all.
Actaully, archy is not 1/2 bird and 1/2 reptile, it's about 3/4 reptile and 1/4 bird, at least by modern bird 'standards'. IE: for every unique avian characteristic feature it has about 3 features unique to reptiles.
@proudfootz You're right. I just made the rather pedantic quibble for the creationist crowd who like to say that it is 100% avian. It's not even close.
i've read all comments, and im seriously curious how Cambrian Explosion and study of DNA support theory of evolution? and i didnt ask for book recomendations, i asked your opinion..
The study of DNA shows how all life is related, and the Cambrian shows how life developed contrary to creationist principles of making something out of nothing.
Remember kids that there are no "birds" and "reptiles" in nature! They are just imaginary human has put animals into. "It's a bird!" argument is not valid as it is something between modern bird and extinct reptiles.
There's all kinds of ways which science uses to observe what happens in nature. The simplest way is to go outside and use our sense organs to see, hear, feel, smell, and taste what's going on in the world.
@proudfootz yes i got that. thank you. that simplest way can be done by a bunch of middle school students too nowadays
but your "Yes, the whole concept of a 'species' is itself a human construct attempting to make sense of our observations about nature. " is confusing. i thought you're evolutionist
Archaeopteryx is not like a modern bird - it took millions of years of evolution to get those.
It confirms what evolution predicted, a transitional species between 'kinds' of animals.
The fossil record shows there was a time *before* birds of any kind, then species like archaeopteryx turn up (dinosaurs evolving bird-like features), then there are birds.
@varoshah "Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not." - Dr. Alan Feduccia in DISCOVER magazine, Feb 2003.
It's online. Look it up. ( And go take some biology classes instead of repeating Ken Ham platitudes.)
Yes, yes, I've heard the Feduccia and Occrum quotes a million times. You keep saying that his statement that "It's a bird!" somehow stops it from being half-reptile, half-bird. Of course it's a bird... it's also an archosaur, and if you read Feduccia's work, he clearly understands this!
Dr. Feduccia thinks that birds evolved from earlier T-rex type dinosaurs. Most scientists disagree with him.
But they ALL agree that 'Archie' is a transitional bird.
What about other feathered raptors during the Cretaceous peroid? They still them looked like dinosaurs and suddenly after than they have full flight and beaks! And the final question above all: Why flight?
Better question is how in the heck any one with sound mind and brain could try and convince any one else that flight actually evolved separately in birds, insects and mammals. (actually they only say twice, because apparently they really havent made a distinction between what makes mammals reptiles and birds..
What is important is to recognise that the dinosaurs made it. certainly most of their great big lumbering cousings didn't make it, but obviously a few did, they came nicely equiped for the job, small and sleek like their very distant cousins the mammals who made it too. But the dinosaurs had a different set of tools, scales turned in to feathers, arms in to birds they survived in the long run by inventing flight, a feat that is amazing and to suggest dinosaurs are dead maligns that feat.
That feat is amazing? Why is it amazing? Any one every notice that these evolutionists tells always contain these adjectives, amazing, odd defying, impossible change, anything but the use of the word miraculous to justify their nonsensical drivel?
Seriously you why do you call it amazing? could it be that you have no logical explanation for it but still refuse to admit it?
I've quite enjoyed your presentation of Archaeopteryx, but one thing kind of annoyed me and it was the description of it being "50% bird and 50% reptile or dinosaur." without a doubt I think you understand teh transition and the importance of it, but I think describing it within a pure cladistic model which would really describe it as 100% and maybe 100% bird or maybe 50%, the line between the two is arbitrary-ish and not that important.
This presentation isn't very formal, but of the traits under discussion it is clear that archaeopteryx is somewhere in between and saying it's 'halfway' is shorthand for that idea.
Of course this creature was 100% archaeopteryx and well adapted to its environment - our classifications of 'dinosaur' and 'bird' are in a sense abstract and arbitrary.
The archaeopteryx was not debuked by creationists but by unbiased scientists it s a forgery but you still taught it as a fact why?.There s a BIG difference between Science and evolution
Evolutionism is voodoo science ,it survives only on propaganda .Science doesnt need evolutionism its a waste of time ,there s so many things to discover and study why waste your time on it?
"archaeopteryx [debuked by] unbiased scientists it s a forgery"
It was claimed by two scientists that a specific fossil specimin of Archaeopteryx had feathers added with a thin layer of cement. This claim was, debunked and the specimen is still considered genuine. Other fossils with the same features have long since proven the one in question to be real.
Archaeopteryx itself was never in question, and you have twisted the facts around and are yourself guilty of spreading propaganda...
actually (see ~second 37) as a creationist i have thought a lot about the many steps that must have lead up to the formation of bacteria ( if it happened as you assume it did) and surely you must know that 6 steps is oversimplified and sketchy as well...it more likely took millions of steps even for bacteria to form..stop insulting creationists and deal with the ultimate worldview we ascribe to: that regardless of how long it took for life to form the world screams "intelligent source!"
pf, ive thought of that many times and understand your view. in my view, life is a gift which has been produced in spite of terribly bad odds against it (especially against intelligent life). the fact that obstacles had to be overcome for life to occur is only greater evidence of the intelligence of the source in my opinion. beautiful laws and structure in the universe are necessary for life to form. where did these laws come from in your opinion?
The laws of nature are inherent in the existence of the physical objects that make up the world. These are not the kind of laws such as intelligent beings make to regulate behavior. They are discovered not invented.
This does NOT fit the model of a true missing link, because all of its components are fully formed and fully functional. Its wings are perfectly suited for flight, and the structure of its feathers is perfect to the smallest detail. A true missing link should show PARTIAL DEVELOPMENT of something that appears fully forned later on.
Creationists CAN explain all those features as unique to the organism, this guy is wrong about that. Some scientists who studied the evidence became Christians!
To tell the truth, it does fit a model of a true missing link if you take a better look. Sure it's parts were fully formed and functional. But that was only because it was like that at the time. As for the noted "wings", they weren't perfectly suited for flight. Given that the feathers were maybe proto-feathers, they could only used for gliding between trees. Sort of like with Microraptor. And I wouldn't really call them wings since they still had hands.
Well the only things in the fossil record that are partially formed are vestigial parts of a species. One example would be the "partialy formed" whale legs found among ancient and modern species. As for the platypus, well the argument has been dubunked a few times. But its appearance isn't everything. Its DNA can tell another story. One that might clear up some mysteries of how the first mammals came around.
"A true missing link should show PARTIAL DEVELOPMENT of something that appears fully forned later on." Where did you get this definition from? Why do you believe that limited human assumptions should define developmental progress in nature? Didn't you watch the video? He clearly pointed out that its skeleton is not like a modern bird. The idea of "partial development" is a fallacious construct. Nature does not predict the future; it's more like building upon previous successes.
Archaeopteryx' skeleton, not its feathers, is what defines it as transitional. Modern birds have an aerodynamic torso with fused backbone (which is why birds cannot bend their backs like mammals or reptiles). Archaeopteryx's torso does not have that fused aerodynamic construction. Why creationists focus exclusively on the feathers shows their general ignorance on this subject. The feathers are just one part of the animal.
It's far from obvious that living things were 'designed' by an intelligence. Nor do we know that life can be 'created'.
The succession of species in the fossil record strongly suggests evolution. Otherwise we have to imagine 'designers' coming down every thousand years or so to 'create' new species to replace the extinct ones.
Since there's no evidence of creation, we'll have to stick with scientific evidence pointing to life being a possible outcome of the chemical processes on which it depends to live.
and yes, there are enough fossils, you just need to look them up. the whale evolution in particular is perfectly documented, as well as, shall I say, even Human evolution-the problem these days is that we have too many transitionals on our line-hard to figure out which ones actually led to us. I'd say Rhodesiensis is our immediate ancestor, but I can't be certain :P
yes, bodo, broken hill, and other African specimens are examples. and these are all the candidates for our immediate ancestry-I think Broken hill is the one. then there are the 2 species in Europe that could have made heidelbergensis, and the two early homo's who could have started allthis XD
you seem to find it hard to believe, and I do too.
there is a good book on the subject, with cramia all depicted, called "from lucy to language". even Aronra mentioned the numbers of hominids found.
I cant stand when stupid people make comments that are so dumb they make one wonder if you even bothered to pick up a book to read about your own beliefs.
The fossil record is so lacking in fossils even the foremost evolutionists readily admit this
"Taking into account all of these requirements, its clear that the fossil record must be incomplete. we can estimate that we have fossil evidence of only 0.1 percent to 1 percent of all species—hardly a good sample of the history of life!"
this is an actual quote from a book written by an evolutionist not a creationist.
(i didnt bother quoting darwin because you probably dont even know who he is you freakin moron)
Next time come up with a real point... One that you can actually back up... as you've made none... other than trying to be the loudest dumb ass in this commenting area...
I never said it was perfect, just that it is suprisingly documented, and increasingly being filled up. the human line is actually almost perfect nowadays, thus the example. I even know the line for whales, apes, T-rex, a few sauropods, snakes, and even bats for a bonus.
and don't tell a geology major that-it makes such people feel as if they haven't studied. and I don't "believe" in evolution, I accept it-I believe in Islam, but accept science, since one accepts reality. evo ain't a religion.
PS: where do you get your sources from? I have lucy and language, glorified dinosaurs, my own photographs of the fossils, and Gould and elbrige's punc-eq article, Aronra's vids, DE2's vids, etc, to name a few. none are quote-mined, and all are well used.
Only in your narrow minded small brain that is so confused about the issue.
Many scientists through out time including some of the greatest didnt believe in evolution. And there is not a single scientific advancement in history attributable to the bogus theory of evolution!!
Seems you made a fool out of yourself claiming evolution was of any importance to science. Having exposed the stupidity in your comment you are now fighting the caps lock wars..
Poster child of ignoramuses the world over. When exposed as being monumentally stupid, out do your previous baboonery by engaging in even more infantile arguments..
Can you name the scientists instead of just saying "Many"? Are they Pre-Darwinian?
You seem to be confused about the fact of evolution and the theory that explains it. The fact was known as far back as the Sumerians... it wasn't until Darwin that a logical theory of it's workings came about.
You're *such* a pro-people non-bashing person, I really hope you do not hyperventilate while instructing us lesser mortals with your great wisdom and restraint.
You internet tough-guys have it easy: if you were going to 'kick the ass' of everyone who makes a concise and cogent argument better than you seem able to do you won't have time to do anything else.
Anyone interested in DNA and how it supports evolution should read 'The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution' by Sean B. Carroll, a professor of genetics at the University of WisconsinMadison.
This is a fascinating, accessible book that shows how recent scientific findings confirmevolution - check it out!
This is a great example of the typical half educated fool who cant even do simple critical thinking for himself.
The article is entirely based on the studies of a man who was studying embryos in a lab and experimenting with them. Proposing scenarios by the way that can not and will never ever happen on their own and require his "intelligent" manipulation to achieve the results he got.
This is not proof of evolution of any kind.
It would help if you even bothered to read the article
kara doesn't like science magazines because they're 'propaganda'. ROFL!
Kara also believes *all* scientists are engaged in a mysterious 'conspiracy' to suppress all that evidence for 'designers' who periodically visit the earth to replenish the supply of animals and plants that keep going extinct!
Nice try you pathetic liar. But i wont let you get away with it. The truth of the matter is 90% of all science is polluted with the bogus idea of evolution and as such they will do everything to distort the truth to make sure that their scientific findings are in line with the theory.
Case and point, the recent controversy that proved the existence of small human like hominids that many evolutionists tried to discredit simply becoz it defied their bogus beliefs.
Case and point that bogus article i cited in world reknown science magazine advancing bogus conclusions from a study done in a lab with a scientist guiding the experiments, in conditions that would never ever happen in nature and then claiming its proof of evolution.
Its shows your stupidity quite well when you fail to address that glaring fact and choose to make up b/s. Typical darwinist mullah
...So that article obviously implies that scientists and programmers must have discovered the time-loop continuum and used our accumulated knowledge about life to recreate life on earth, AMIRITE?
Well, that was a bit of an angry reaction.. apparently you're not so open-minded as you claim. Perhaps you are more like a mullah clinging to your own untested (and unstated) theories. You certainly shout a lot, like fanatics in the street.
you are pissed off because you dont have any clue as to what my belief is. Because in your sick twisted mind, the fallibility of my belief would some how prove the bogus nonsensical vodoo shit you are trying to sell on here.
Hey asshole, i can make videos..i am sure i have one of you and your mother.
because posting vids proves evolution..right? posting vids is scientific method...what a fucking bozo
Hmmm... you resort to swearing, namecalling, attempts at juvenile distraction and typing in all caps yet claim I'm the one who's "pissed off"?
ROFLMAO. Do you understand what "projection" is?
You claim you can "make videos"? So go do 'em. I didn't claim to be a "Darwinist" any more than you claimed to be a "creationist". I'm being open-minded, here, and waiting for you to convince me that you have a superior argument beyond making a bunch of noise.
I mean... look, I'm really being serious, here. I am simply curious to hear about the better idea. I could care less what "karamarouge" personally thinks. However, if you've heard a better idea than evolution, creationism,or Lord Xenu and the Thetans, then please share it with us. Share it for the betterment of education and mankind.
Only people in this thread that hate science are you darwinist mullahs that desparelty try to refute known facts and pathetically try to disimiss the hard scientific facts showing that the evolution you tout never ever happened and you have no proof of it.
Oh do tell... in what secret cave are you holding onto these scientific facts showing evolution never happened?
Please Please Please... you will be world famous if you publish them...
I understand if you don't want all the fame and glory that would obviously be tossed at you like panties at a Engleburt Humperdink concert... so I propose this... give the evidence to me... and i will give it to the media...
Sorry, but the facts speak for themselves - and no amount of spinning from karamarouge will change the fact that evolution happens, it is observed, and there's tons of evidence for it.
Since all he can do is spout insults, we can see he hasn't a rational thought to add.
@chyrd no, kara made her point. into what HIV virus evolves? you didnt answer her. it never turn into another species, it still virus. i think you're the one whos failed to differentiate between variation and evolution. or can you give another bacteria/virus that had turned into different species. not too hard right? they've been around since the beginning
@RanNishikido I don't remember that question... but obviously there is no answer to it... Evolution doesn't have an ultimate goal... It seems to me that you lack a basic understanding of how evolution works. A virus will always reproduce a virus, and a dog will always reproduce a dog... It's through environmental pressures and random mutation that speciation occurs.
@chyrd hehee nope, i was going to ask you, how is it possible a reptillian lungs turned into an avian lungs if Archaeopteryx really a transitional species, but yeah i thought better of that. and i know you wont able to provide answer to my question :) thanks though
@chyrd and oh wait u still didnt give me any examples. a scale turned into a feather, a reptilian lungs turned into an avian lungs, etc etc..needs a really complicated mechanism of mutations or environmental pressures dont you think? but im not gonna ask u to explain that. so just gimme example of bacteria/virus/fungi that has evolved
@RanNishikido Sure... how about Flavobacterium? It eats Nylon... How about the AIDS virus... it constantly changes itself... how about anti biotic resistant bacteria... Your question is a bit pointed considering that ALL bacteria, viruses and fungi have evolved... so take your pic... for a really good one... look up the explanation of the bacterial flagellum in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.
No matter how much evidence one lays out, creationists are typically unable and unwilling to grasp it.
They'd won't 'believe' evolution until they see it happen right before their eyes but are unable to show how any 'designers' can magically make new species appear out of thin air.
@proudfootz that's ok... I don't debate to change their minds... but to give our side of the story to the ones who might still be sitting on the fence...
@chyrd "A virus will always reproduce a virus, and a dog will always reproduce a dog..." & "It's through environmental pressures and random mutation that speciation occurs. "
you're contradicting yourself..and u said its me who lacked basic understanding of evolution
I could care less about creationists.. I dont know or their beliefs.
and you do sound incredibly stupid claiming those hominids disprove creationists when it truth they present a gigantic problem for a whole lot of evolutionists myths time to make space on your little bogus monkey charts for Frodo..
lmao!!!! oh wait... that frodo fossil now means humanoids hit the magic darwin lottery not once but twice...
Your feeble attempts to 'disprove' evolution keep coming to nothing.
Of course the scientific evidence disproves creationism - the fact that you think science is incredibly stupid just shows you are out of touch with reality.
You just keep laughing to yourself instead of using rational means to understand the world.
You've been shrieking about how stupid and pathetic all the darwinist mullah bozos are - complaining about name-calling is rather hypocritical at this point.
But that's not unusual for those who attack science while using their computer to access the internet.
Lmao... The reason you keep throwing out these bogus straw man arguments is simply because what you are arguing is far from science. It is vodoo garbage that has not been proven, cant be observed or even experimented on..
kinda like umm watcha call it when people blindly believe in crap they cant prove? oh yeah... religion.
hence the appropriate term, Darwinist mullah, much like those crazed jihadis who believe in the 72 virgins. You have about as much credibility as they do.
Do you believe the moon landings were also bogus? Being a contrarian, attempting irony by mirror-parroting accusations and typing invectives doesn't automatically make you the smarter one. If you have a theory, then let's hear it. Please, edify us, o wise one. Make your own video if you're as smart as you claim -- you should at least understand how to operate Windows Movie Maker.
P.S. it also might help if you learned what a "bogus straw man argument" actually is.
karamarouge -- you don't seem to understand the slightest thing about this subject beyond its strawman caricature as portrayed in creationist cartoon books.
One of the differences between science and religion is that disagreement over the details is allowed in science. To this you seem quite clueless.
Take some courses at your local community college, or elect to take them in your junior year -- whichever may be the case.
Looks I understand the disagreements in science better than you do.
Thats why you made the bone head mistake of assuming that i was making up arguments of my own instead of using arguments that have been advanced by some of the most hardcore Evolutionists out there.
I am not suprised that would would attempt to take this tangent in your argument. You are not the first ignorant darwinist i have debated..
You all always resort to the same bogus tactics you see you cant fudge the FACTS.
Seriously, you are obtuse enough to think that, that half assed answe you gave would wash?
It has failed you morons for the last 80 plus years why the hell did you think today would be the day you would sell it?
Yes science can be a tough task master and we shall not let you darwinist mullahs corrupt in a bid to sell your unproven unscientific bullshit that seeks to discard evidence as long as it contradicts your religion.
Every time the creationists have tried to sell their anti-science agenda they have been sent home with their tails between their legs.
Now creationism is so well refuted they have to disguise it as 'intelligent design' or 'irreducible complexity' - but it all comes down to the same thing: magic.
The time to use 'magic' to explain things is over - better grow up and face life head on.
karamarouge keeps trying to pretend scientists deny the fact of evolution, but has not been able to cite any - instead keeps citing articles that support evolution.
The tactic is usually known as 'quote mining' - often used by ignorant creationists because they haven't any credible authorities to dispute science.
Paleontologists will find other aspects of the genetic results perhaps even more disturbing than the news regarding turtles. Hedges and Poling provide some of the first DNA analysis of tuataras, a group of four-legged reptiles that look superficially like lizards and are regarded as their closest living relatives.
The analysis by Hedges and Poling, however, places tuataras nearer to crocodiles than to lizards. From a paleontological point of view, I cannot even begin to imagine how a tuatara could not be [closely] related to lizards and snakes, says Rieppel. 5
Science News, 6 March 1999, Turtles and Crocs: Strange Relations p. 159 (Ev)
Well I guess the discussion is finally settled, upon recent confirmation by paleontologists that archaeopteryx was a Dinosaur and ancestor of the Xiaontigia dinosaur. This confirrms creationists claim that it was either a dino or a bird but not a transitional form. Checkmate!!!!
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955
And I guess they got wiped out in The Flood a few hundred years ago....
proudfootz 6 months ago
@proudfootz yup.
TheHoggopogo 5 months ago
I guess, if Archaeopteryx was discovered today after Microraptor, Rahonavis and Anchiornis, creationists would say: it's just another 100% Theropod and not related to birds at all.
kereng5 9 months ago
Great video.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Actaully, archy is not 1/2 bird and 1/2 reptile, it's about 3/4 reptile and 1/4 bird, at least by modern bird 'standards'. IE: for every unique avian characteristic feature it has about 3 features unique to reptiles.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
@TerrencePhillip66
However we want to divvy it up, it is a transitional species - the kind that creationists falsely claim doesn't exist.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz You're right. I just made the rather pedantic quibble for the creationist crowd who like to say that it is 100% avian. It's not even close.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
@TerrencePhillip66
Excerpt from article in naturenews:
"Analysis of fossil traits suggests that Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all."
Which is not surprising as true science is not afraid of continual analysis of past findings to ensure accuracy.
intercepttest 7 months ago
@intercepttest
Yes, that's one of the cool things about science - our knowledge grows by examination of the evidence.
proudfootz 7 months ago
i've read all comments, and im seriously curious how Cambrian Explosion and study of DNA support theory of evolution? and i didnt ask for book recomendations, i asked your opinion..
RanNishikido 1 year ago
@RanNishikido
The study of DNA shows how all life is related, and the Cambrian shows how life developed contrary to creationist principles of making something out of nothing.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@RanNishikido You understand that the Cambrian "explosion" lasted tens of millions of years, right?
Leehofooks 1 year ago
Remember kids that there are no "birds" and "reptiles" in nature! They are just imaginary human has put animals into. "It's a bird!" argument is not valid as it is something between modern bird and extinct reptiles.
muromestari 1 year ago
@muromestari
Yes, the whole concept of a 'species' is itself a human construct attempting to make sense of our observations about nature.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
and how is your way to observe the nature?
RanNishikido 1 year ago
@RanNishikido
There's all kinds of ways which science uses to observe what happens in nature. The simplest way is to go outside and use our sense organs to see, hear, feel, smell, and taste what's going on in the world.
proudfootz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@proudfootz yes i got that. thank you. that simplest way can be done by a bunch of middle school students too nowadays
but your "Yes, the whole concept of a 'species' is itself a human construct attempting to make sense of our observations about nature. " is confusing. i thought you're evolutionist
RanNishikido 1 year ago
@RanNishikido
I'm not sure what you mean by 'evolutionist'.
I don't understand how human-created concepts like 'species' are confusing to you.
proudfootz 1 year ago
LONG LIVE TRANSTIONAL SPECIES!. Wait we are transitional aren't we if we contintue to evovle?
questionsamson 1 year ago 3
That's my take on it.
proudfootz 1 year ago
'archaeopteryx...half reptile half bird'
Dr. Feduccia states that its a BIRD!
and he believes in evolution!
varoshah 2 years ago
Archaeopteryx is not like a modern bird - it took millions of years of evolution to get those.
It confirms what evolution predicted, a transitional species between 'kinds' of animals.
The fossil record shows there was a time *before* birds of any kind, then species like archaeopteryx turn up (dinosaurs evolving bird-like features), then there are birds.
proudfootz 2 years ago
its not like a modern bird?
so what?!
the duck billed platypus is unlike other animals in its genre....
yet its not a transitional speacies :)
varoshah 2 years ago
Archaeopteryx is a transitional species, that's 'so what'.
It demonstrates that birds descended from non-bird ancestors.
You don't know that the platypus is *not* a transitional species.
proudfootz 2 years ago
@varoshah "Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not." - Dr. Alan Feduccia in DISCOVER magazine, Feb 2003.
It's online. Look it up. ( And go take some biology classes instead of repeating Ken Ham platitudes.)
CurbYrDogma 2 years ago
I think this is known as 'ownage', but as a creationist, you must be used to that.
gamesbok 2 years ago
Yes, yes, I've heard the Feduccia and Occrum quotes a million times. You keep saying that his statement that "It's a bird!" somehow stops it from being half-reptile, half-bird. Of course it's a bird... it's also an archosaur, and if you read Feduccia's work, he clearly understands this!
Dr. Feduccia thinks that birds evolved from earlier T-rex type dinosaurs. Most scientists disagree with him.
But they ALL agree that 'Archie' is a transitional bird.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
Wow. Great list! Well done!
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
What about other feathered raptors during the Cretaceous peroid? They still them looked like dinosaurs and suddenly after than they have full flight and beaks! And the final question above all: Why flight?
LocoRico89 2 years ago
Apparently many species evolved feathers - good evidence of the potential of evolutionary processes.
The advantages of flight - among insects, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals certainly seem to have reinforced that evolutionary development as well.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Better question is how in the heck any one with sound mind and brain could try and convince any one else that flight actually evolved separately in birds, insects and mammals. (actually they only say twice, because apparently they really havent made a distinction between what makes mammals reptiles and birds..
go figure...
karamarouge 2 years ago
What is important is to recognise that the dinosaurs made it. certainly most of their great big lumbering cousings didn't make it, but obviously a few did, they came nicely equiped for the job, small and sleek like their very distant cousins the mammals who made it too. But the dinosaurs had a different set of tools, scales turned in to feathers, arms in to birds they survived in the long run by inventing flight, a feat that is amazing and to suggest dinosaurs are dead maligns that feat.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
sir -
For some reason extinction is thought of as being 'failure' even though dinosaurs were quite successful by any measure.
Extinction is an inevitability in the long run.
proudfootz 2 years ago
A very interesting is not completely stupid paradox you have there.
diversity via extinction!!!!
some one should get around to killing all the whales, lions, tigers, bald eagles. Every mammal, fish and bird.
As per evolutionists nonsensical logic, extinction of life some how always leads to an increase in the variety of life.. right?
karamarouge 2 years ago
That feat is amazing? Why is it amazing? Any one every notice that these evolutionists tells always contain these adjectives, amazing, odd defying, impossible change, anything but the use of the word miraculous to justify their nonsensical drivel?
Seriously you why do you call it amazing? could it be that you have no logical explanation for it but still refuse to admit it?
karamarouge 2 years ago
I've quite enjoyed your presentation of Archaeopteryx, but one thing kind of annoyed me and it was the description of it being "50% bird and 50% reptile or dinosaur." without a doubt I think you understand teh transition and the importance of it, but I think describing it within a pure cladistic model which would really describe it as 100% and maybe 100% bird or maybe 50%, the line between the two is arbitrary-ish and not that important.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
sir -
This presentation isn't very formal, but of the traits under discussion it is clear that archaeopteryx is somewhere in between and saying it's 'halfway' is shorthand for that idea.
Of course this creature was 100% archaeopteryx and well adapted to its environment - our classifications of 'dinosaur' and 'bird' are in a sense abstract and arbitrary.
Thanks for your input.
proudfootz 2 years ago
The archaeopteryx was not debuked by creationists but by unbiased scientists it s a forgery but you still taught it as a fact why?.There s a BIG difference between Science and evolution
Evolutionism is voodoo science ,it survives only on propaganda .Science doesnt need evolutionism its a waste of time ,there s so many things to discover and study why waste your time on it?
SonofJaphet 2 years ago
sono -
Archaeopteryx hasn't been debunked beause it is real.
Evolution is a fact about the world discovered by science.
Why you would choose to lie about something like this is beyond reason.
proudfootz 2 years ago
s.o.j. Evolutionism isn't a word. Stop using it!
XXL2oo 2 years ago
"archaeopteryx [debuked by] unbiased scientists it s a forgery"
It was claimed by two scientists that a specific fossil specimin of Archaeopteryx had feathers added with a thin layer of cement. This claim was, debunked and the specimen is still considered genuine. Other fossils with the same features have long since proven the one in question to be real.
Archaeopteryx itself was never in question, and you have twisted the facts around and are yourself guilty of spreading propaganda...
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago 3
laws are inherent where physical objects exist.. but where do these objects come from..and why such inherent structure in them?
likelivingstones 2 years ago
We find these objects in the world, and through science we try to understand them as best we can.
That seems to be the best bet for figuring out their natures and origins.
proudfootz 2 years ago
actually (see ~second 37) as a creationist i have thought a lot about the many steps that must have lead up to the formation of bacteria ( if it happened as you assume it did) and surely you must know that 6 steps is oversimplified and sketchy as well...it more likely took millions of steps even for bacteria to form..stop insulting creationists and deal with the ultimate worldview we ascribe to: that regardless of how long it took for life to form the world screams "intelligent source!"
likelivingstones 2 years ago
lls -
The world doesn't seem to indicate anything about an 'intelligent source'.
The fact that most of the universe is hostile to any kind of life indicates that is is an unintended byproduct of natural processes.
The fact that most species that ever lived have died out is more in line with the evolutionary view than the 'intelligent designer' notion.
proudfootz 2 years ago
pf, ive thought of that many times and understand your view. in my view, life is a gift which has been produced in spite of terribly bad odds against it (especially against intelligent life). the fact that obstacles had to be overcome for life to occur is only greater evidence of the intelligence of the source in my opinion. beautiful laws and structure in the universe are necessary for life to form. where did these laws come from in your opinion?
likelivingstones 2 years ago
also it seems logical to me that an intelligent source would want to create other intelligent beings..
likelivingstones 2 years ago
The laws of nature are inherent in the existence of the physical objects that make up the world. These are not the kind of laws such as intelligent beings make to regulate behavior. They are discovered not invented.
proudfootz 2 years ago
This does NOT fit the model of a true missing link, because all of its components are fully formed and fully functional. Its wings are perfectly suited for flight, and the structure of its feathers is perfect to the smallest detail. A true missing link should show PARTIAL DEVELOPMENT of something that appears fully forned later on.
Creationists CAN explain all those features as unique to the organism, this guy is wrong about that. Some scientists who studied the evidence became Christians!
bem49525 2 years ago
First paragraph from Muncaster, "Dismantling Evolution" p.88 2003 Harvest House Publishers
bem49525 2 years ago
bem -
This species shows a transition between dinosaurs and birds - something the bible forgot to mention.
Indeed the bible seems to have forgotten the majority of species that formed and went extinct long before modern 'kinds' developed.
proudfootz 2 years ago
To tell the truth, it does fit a model of a true missing link if you take a better look. Sure it's parts were fully formed and functional. But that was only because it was like that at the time. As for the noted "wings", they weren't perfectly suited for flight. Given that the feathers were maybe proto-feathers, they could only used for gliding between trees. Sort of like with Microraptor. And I wouldn't really call them wings since they still had hands.
Quetzilecoatil 2 years ago
Comment removed
bem49525 2 years ago
Well the only things in the fossil record that are partially formed are vestigial parts of a species. One example would be the "partialy formed" whale legs found among ancient and modern species. As for the platypus, well the argument has been dubunked a few times. But its appearance isn't everything. Its DNA can tell another story. One that might clear up some mysteries of how the first mammals came around.
Quetzilecoatil 2 years ago
"A true missing link should show PARTIAL DEVELOPMENT of something that appears fully forned later on." Where did you get this definition from? Why do you believe that limited human assumptions should define developmental progress in nature? Didn't you watch the video? He clearly pointed out that its skeleton is not like a modern bird. The idea of "partial development" is a fallacious construct. Nature does not predict the future; it's more like building upon previous successes.
CurbYrDogma 2 years ago 2
Archaeopteryx' skeleton, not its feathers, is what defines it as transitional. Modern birds have an aerodynamic torso with fused backbone (which is why birds cannot bend their backs like mammals or reptiles). Archaeopteryx's torso does not have that fused aerodynamic construction. Why creationists focus exclusively on the feathers shows their general ignorance on this subject. The feathers are just one part of the animal.
CurbYrDogma 2 years ago
who thinks this is just a bird???? I have never heard that... ever. Clearly, it is its own species.
I can't believe in evolution- there is not nearly enough fossil evidence. I'm not sure who created life, but obviously, we were designed.
girlgotgrace 2 years ago
It's far from obvious that living things were 'designed' by an intelligence. Nor do we know that life can be 'created'.
The succession of species in the fossil record strongly suggests evolution. Otherwise we have to imagine 'designers' coming down every thousand years or so to 'create' new species to replace the extinct ones.
proudfootz 2 years ago
This guy is full of so much bullshit it makes me laugh my self sick! "we dont know that life can be created" lmao!
Hey bozo do you or any one else have proof that life can create itself out of thin air ?
karamarouge 2 years ago
kara -
Since there's no evidence of creation, we'll have to stick with scientific evidence pointing to life being a possible outcome of the chemical processes on which it depends to live.
proudfootz 2 years ago
watch my latest video to find an example.
and yes, there are enough fossils, you just need to look them up. the whale evolution in particular is perfectly documented, as well as, shall I say, even Human evolution-the problem these days is that we have too many transitionals on our line-hard to figure out which ones actually led to us. I'd say Rhodesiensis is our immediate ancestor, but I can't be certain :P
Albukhshi 2 years ago
albukh -
It is interesting that there really are so *many* transitional forms that it's difficult to choose among them.
proudfootz 2 years ago
yes, bodo, broken hill, and other African specimens are examples. and these are all the candidates for our immediate ancestry-I think Broken hill is the one. then there are the 2 species in Europe that could have made heidelbergensis, and the two early homo's who could have started allthis XD
you seem to find it hard to believe, and I do too.
there is a good book on the subject, with cramia all depicted, called "from lucy to language". even Aronra mentioned the numbers of hominids found.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
I cant stand when stupid people make comments that are so dumb they make one wonder if you even bothered to pick up a book to read about your own beliefs.
The fossil record is so lacking in fossils even the foremost evolutionists readily admit this
karamarouge 2 years ago
"Taking into account all of these requirements, its clear that the fossil record must be incomplete. we can estimate that we have fossil evidence of only 0.1 percent to 1 percent of all species—hardly a good sample of the history of life!"
this is an actual quote from a book written by an evolutionist not a creationist.
(i didnt bother quoting darwin because you probably dont even know who he is you freakin moron)
karamarouge 2 years ago
Next time come up with a real point... One that you can actually back up... as you've made none... other than trying to be the loudest dumb ass in this commenting area...
chyrd 2 years ago
Pot calling the kettle black? Hmmmm....
chyrd 2 years ago
I never said it was perfect, just that it is suprisingly documented, and increasingly being filled up. the human line is actually almost perfect nowadays, thus the example. I even know the line for whales, apes, T-rex, a few sauropods, snakes, and even bats for a bonus.
and don't tell a geology major that-it makes such people feel as if they haven't studied. and I don't "believe" in evolution, I accept it-I believe in Islam, but accept science, since one accepts reality. evo ain't a religion.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
PS: where do you get your sources from? I have lucy and language, glorified dinosaurs, my own photographs of the fossils, and Gould and elbrige's punc-eq article, Aronra's vids, DE2's vids, etc, to name a few. none are quote-mined, and all are well used.
can you match?
Albukhshi 2 years ago
kara -
There are literally tons of fossils - but not one iota of evidence for creation.
There's much more evidence for the scientific fact of evolution than for any god.
Yet that total lack of evidence doesn't slow down the creationists.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Nicely explained, suck on that, creationist scum!
Gunth0r 2 years ago
Just out of curiosity, if karamarouge isn't a creationist, what DOES s/he believe in?
XXL2oo 2 years ago
xxl -
It is clearly not science that kara believes in.
Without evolution there really isn't any biological science at all.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Well, if a god didn't do it and evolution isn't responsible, I don't know what else kara could believe in.
XXL2oo 2 years ago
Only in your narrow minded small brain that is so confused about the issue.
Many scientists through out time including some of the greatest didnt believe in evolution. And there is not a single scientific advancement in history attributable to the bogus theory of evolution!!
NOT EVEN ONE!!!
WHAT A FOOL!
karamarouge 2 years ago
All you've got for me is insults?
Try learning. It's good for you!
XXL2oo 2 years ago
XXL -
Uh-oh, kara's pulled out the CAPS LOCK, must have some really persuasive evidence...
LOL!
proudfootz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Seems you made a fool out of yourself claiming evolution was of any importance to science. Having exposed the stupidity in your comment you are now fighting the caps lock wars..
Poster child of ignoramuses the world over. When exposed as being monumentally stupid, out do your previous baboonery by engaging in even more infantile arguments..
nice job bobo, you get a banana for that one.
karamarouge 2 years ago
This may be hard for you, but try and get some real evidence against evolution. Not just writing off a list of random insults.
XXL2oo 2 years ago 2
Germ Theory, Gene Therapies, Stem Cell research, Cancer treatments, Vaccine development, embyology, neurology, internal medicine...
Can you name the scientists instead of just saying "Many"? Are they Pre-Darwinian?
You seem to be confused about the fact of evolution and the theory that explains it. The fact was known as far back as the Sumerians... it wasn't until Darwin that a logical theory of it's workings came about.
chyrd 2 years ago
Yeah! An ordinary bird WITH TEETH!
What Birds have Teeth?
Oh right, ones that God created!
There's no getting through to these Creationists!
Bowmaj21 2 years ago
Hello, can you say propaganda and straw-mans
Undertaker202 2 years ago
Exactly - that is what creationism is all about: 'propaganda and straw-mans'.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 2 years ago
Sorry that a dispassionate review of the facts seems to make you even crazier.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 2 years ago
I'm truly sorry to be so 'narrow minded' in comparison with a great soul such as you reveal yourself to be.
Your shining example is one we could all learn something from.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 2 years ago
You're *such* a pro-people non-bashing person, I really hope you do not hyperventilate while instructing us lesser mortals with your great wisdom and restraint.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 2 years ago
You internet tough-guys have it easy: if you were going to 'kick the ass' of everyone who makes a concise and cogent argument better than you seem able to do you won't have time to do anything else.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Apparently Undertaker202 has decided to take a complete leave of her senses.
She kept removing her moronic threats and insults - I guess she is capable of shame after all!
proudfootz 2 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 2 years ago
Anyone interested in DNA and how it supports evolution should read 'The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution' by Sean B. Carroll, a professor of genetics at the University of WisconsinMadison.
This is a fascinating, accessible book that shows how recent scientific findings confirmevolution - check it out!
proudfootz 3 years ago
This is a great example of the typical half educated fool who cant even do simple critical thinking for himself.
The article is entirely based on the studies of a man who was studying embryos in a lab and experimenting with them. Proposing scenarios by the way that can not and will never ever happen on their own and require his "intelligent" manipulation to achieve the results he got.
This is not proof of evolution of any kind.
It would help if you even bothered to read the article
karamarouge 3 years ago
While you are at it, you may wanna pull out your discover magazine FEB 2005 for the article on "testing darwin"
Very interesting story about some kids who "designed" a programme that modified itself to test darwin's theory.
so much for a legitimate source of info.
(may be i should find some creationists propaganda mag to help defend my side.)
But wait, i dont need propaganda, i have legitimate science and scientific princpals to make my argument for me.
karamarouge 3 years ago
kara doesn't like science magazines because they're 'propaganda'. ROFL!
Kara also believes *all* scientists are engaged in a mysterious 'conspiracy' to suppress all that evidence for 'designers' who periodically visit the earth to replenish the supply of animals and plants that keep going extinct!
proudfootz 3 years ago
Nice try you pathetic liar. But i wont let you get away with it. The truth of the matter is 90% of all science is polluted with the bogus idea of evolution and as such they will do everything to distort the truth to make sure that their scientific findings are in line with the theory.
Case and point, the recent controversy that proved the existence of small human like hominids that many evolutionists tried to discredit simply becoz it defied their bogus beliefs.
karamarouge 2 years ago
Case and point that bogus article i cited in world reknown science magazine advancing bogus conclusions from a study done in a lab with a scientist guiding the experiments, in conditions that would never ever happen in nature and then claiming its proof of evolution.
Its shows your stupidity quite well when you fail to address that glaring fact and choose to make up b/s. Typical darwinist mullah
karamarouge 2 years ago
kara -
I think you need a vacation - you're just getting repetitive with your unwarranted claims and distortions.
proudfootz 2 years ago
...So that article obviously implies that scientists and programmers must have discovered the time-loop continuum and used our accumulated knowledge about life to recreate life on earth, AMIRITE?
CurbYrDogma 2 years ago
i THINK ITS NOT TOO LATE FOR YOU TO GO BACK TO SUCKING ON YOUR MAMMIES TITTIES.. LOL
(ITS PROBABLY STILL LEGAL IN YOUR STATE)
karamarouge 2 years ago
Well, that was a bit of an angry reaction.. apparently you're not so open-minded as you claim. Perhaps you are more like a mullah clinging to your own untested (and unstated) theories. You certainly shout a lot, like fanatics in the street.
CurbYrDogma 2 years ago
cyd -
kara does seem a bit of a CAPS LOCK fanatic.
Just goes to show a little education is a dangerous thing...
proudfootz 2 years ago
aH... THE CRutch of a defeated darwinist mullah.
you are pissed off because you dont have any clue as to what my belief is. Because in your sick twisted mind, the fallibility of my belief would some how prove the bogus nonsensical vodoo shit you are trying to sell on here.
Hey asshole, i can make videos..i am sure i have one of you and your mother.
because posting vids proves evolution..right? posting vids is scientific method...what a fucking bozo
karamarouge 2 years ago
Hmmm... you resort to swearing, namecalling, attempts at juvenile distraction and typing in all caps yet claim I'm the one who's "pissed off"?
ROFLMAO. Do you understand what "projection" is?
You claim you can "make videos"? So go do 'em. I didn't claim to be a "Darwinist" any more than you claimed to be a "creationist". I'm being open-minded, here, and waiting for you to convince me that you have a superior argument beyond making a bunch of noise.
Now hop to it, toots.
CurbYrDogma 2 years ago
I mean... look, I'm really being serious, here. I am simply curious to hear about the better idea. I could care less what "karamarouge" personally thinks. However, if you've heard a better idea than evolution, creationism,or Lord Xenu and the Thetans, then please share it with us. Share it for the betterment of education and mankind.
CurbYrDogma 2 years ago
cyd -
I suspect kara's agenda is one that is best kept secret from the rest of us.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Only people in this thread that hate science are you darwinist mullahs that desparelty try to refute known facts and pathetically try to disimiss the hard scientific facts showing that the evolution you tout never ever happened and you have no proof of it.
karamarouge 2 years ago
kara -
I don't know why you hate science so much.
Evolution is a scientific fact. Nothing to frighten you!
proudfootz 2 years ago
Oh do tell... in what secret cave are you holding onto these scientific facts showing evolution never happened?
Please Please Please... you will be world famous if you publish them...
I understand if you don't want all the fame and glory that would obviously be tossed at you like panties at a Engleburt Humperdink concert... so I propose this... give the evidence to me... and i will give it to the media...
deal?
chyrd 2 years ago
LMAO!!!Another idiotic question... You want facts proving evolution never happened?
What about the fact that you or no one in the world has ever witnessed it?
What about the fact that we are missing about 99.9% of the fossil evidence we would need for that theory to be true?
What about the fossile evidence in the cambrian era that has completely shot up darwins nonsense.
I could go on an on about many hardcore scientific facts already knows.
What a dunce
karamarouge 2 years ago
Evolution has been observed (google 'evolution observed' and links will take you to scientific papers).
There are literally tons of fossil evidence supporting evolution.
Cambrian era evidence fits evolutionary theory and disproves alternate accounts.
...and DNA evidence further supports evolution showing all extant species are related and descended from common ancestors.
Yes, it seems only a dunce would deny evolution.
proudfootz 2 years ago
I see the darwinist mullah is back on the lying path telling outrageous lies as he goes.
Evolution has NEVER been observed and will never be observed..
Oh wait may be you think we are stupid enough to believe you have a little lab that has been around for millions of years observing evolution..
lmao.
And the cambrian era fossils support evolution..
Lmao.. I dont even have time to waste on such a ridiculously moronic statement.
karamarouge 2 years ago
Sorry, but the facts speak for themselves - and no amount of spinning from karamarouge will change the fact that evolution happens, it is observed, and there's tons of evidence for it.
Since all he can do is spout insults, we can see he hasn't a rational thought to add.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Evolution is observable... sorry you are just wrong. Take H1N1 for example, or HIV. HIV evolves... that's why it's hard to kill.
Your 99.9% number is wrong. It pertains to the fact that 99% or all species that ever lived on the planet, are extinct.
What about the Cambrian explosion "shot up darwins nonsense"?
Please... do go on about the many hardcore facts... you have as yet to come up with one...
chyrd 2 years ago 2
chyrd -
It's hilarious that anyone repeats this canard about the cambrian 'explosion' - it is pure evidence for evolution and destroys creationist claims.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Oh shit!!! the HIV virus evolves? into what exactly? pray tell, does the virus turn into amoeba or some mutant fungi, or super ghoul bacteria?
Oh wait... it remains a freakin virus...HEy bozo how about you acquaint yourself with the argument before running your mouth.
Variation is not what is being debated. Dont confuse variation in a species with evolution dumbass!! The HIV VIRUS REMAINS A VIRUS YA MORON!!!!
karamarouge 2 years ago
I have an idea genius... instead of breaking out your synonym handbook to see how many ways you can say "moron"...
How about breaking open your freshman year high school year book...
But I'm sure you wish to remain demonstrably stupid...
chyrd 2 years ago
chyrd -
kara doesn't even know what evolution is, but that will never stop her from her outrageous and always false claims.
proudfootz 2 years ago
@chyrd no, kara made her point. into what HIV virus evolves? you didnt answer her. it never turn into another species, it still virus. i think you're the one whos failed to differentiate between variation and evolution. or can you give another bacteria/virus that had turned into different species. not too hard right? they've been around since the beginning
RanNishikido 1 year ago
@RanNishikido I don't remember that question... but obviously there is no answer to it... Evolution doesn't have an ultimate goal... It seems to me that you lack a basic understanding of how evolution works. A virus will always reproduce a virus, and a dog will always reproduce a dog... It's through environmental pressures and random mutation that speciation occurs.
chyrd 1 year ago
Comment removed
RanNishikido 1 year ago
@RanNishikido thought better of this comment didn't you...
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd hehee nope, i was going to ask you, how is it possible a reptillian lungs turned into an avian lungs if Archaeopteryx really a transitional species, but yeah i thought better of that. and i know you wont able to provide answer to my question :) thanks though
RanNishikido 1 year ago
@RanNishikido we are all transitional species... the problem you have is that you think there is such a thing as a crocoduck...
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd and oh wait u still didnt give me any examples. a scale turned into a feather, a reptilian lungs turned into an avian lungs, etc etc..needs a really complicated mechanism of mutations or environmental pressures dont you think? but im not gonna ask u to explain that. so just gimme example of bacteria/virus/fungi that has evolved
RanNishikido 1 year ago
@RanNishikido Sure... how about Flavobacterium? It eats Nylon... How about the AIDS virus... it constantly changes itself... how about anti biotic resistant bacteria... Your question is a bit pointed considering that ALL bacteria, viruses and fungi have evolved... so take your pic... for a really good one... look up the explanation of the bacterial flagellum in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd AIDS virus? flavobacterium? antibiotic resistant bacteria? LOL okay then
RanNishikido 1 year ago
@RanNishikido and this is funny why?
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd
No matter how much evidence one lays out, creationists are typically unable and unwilling to grasp it.
They'd won't 'believe' evolution until they see it happen right before their eyes but are unable to show how any 'designers' can magically make new species appear out of thin air.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz that's ok... I don't debate to change their minds... but to give our side of the story to the ones who might still be sitting on the fence...
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd
Yeah, it's more the ones who are stopping by who can still be reached...
proudfootz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chyrd "A virus will always reproduce a virus, and a dog will always reproduce a dog..." & "It's through environmental pressures and random mutation that speciation occurs. "
you're contradicting yourself..and u said its me who lacked basic understanding of evolution
RanNishikido 1 year ago
kara -
Unfortunately for you and your ilk I am not a liar.
Now you're making up statistics to couple with you false assertions.
The discovery of small hominids known as Homo floresiensis proves creationist myths are wrong. Again.
proudfootz 2 years ago
I could care less about creationists.. I dont know or their beliefs.
and you do sound incredibly stupid claiming those hominids disprove creationists when it truth they present a gigantic problem for a whole lot of evolutionists myths time to make space on your little bogus monkey charts for Frodo..
lmao!!!! oh wait... that frodo fossil now means humanoids hit the magic darwin lottery not once but twice...
lmao
karamarouge 2 years ago
kara -
Your feeble attempts to 'disprove' evolution keep coming to nothing.
Of course the scientific evidence disproves creationism - the fact that you think science is incredibly stupid just shows you are out of touch with reality.
You just keep laughing to yourself instead of using rational means to understand the world.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Lol.. i love how the science fails you, so you resort to pathetic name calling and calling me a creationist.
That is typically the last resort of the darwinist mullah how has been beaten by the scientific facts having failed to pass of hogwash as science.
nice try bozo.. Answer with facts becoz i wont fall for you stupid diversionary tactics.
karamarouge 2 years ago
kara -
You've been shrieking about how stupid and pathetic all the darwinist mullah bozos are - complaining about name-calling is rather hypocritical at this point.
But that's not unusual for those who attack science while using their computer to access the internet.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Lmao... The reason you keep throwing out these bogus straw man arguments is simply because what you are arguing is far from science. It is vodoo garbage that has not been proven, cant be observed or even experimented on..
kinda like umm watcha call it when people blindly believe in crap they cant prove? oh yeah... religion.
hence the appropriate term, Darwinist mullah, much like those crazed jihadis who believe in the 72 virgins. You have about as much credibility as they do.
karamarouge 2 years ago
Do you believe the moon landings were also bogus? Being a contrarian, attempting irony by mirror-parroting accusations and typing invectives doesn't automatically make you the smarter one. If you have a theory, then let's hear it. Please, edify us, o wise one. Make your own video if you're as smart as you claim -- you should at least understand how to operate Windows Movie Maker.
P.S. it also might help if you learned what a "bogus straw man argument" actually is.
CurbYrDogma 2 years ago
kara -
You really need help - you are getting increasingly inarticulate and nonsensical.
Evolution has been proved, has literally tons of evidence, and has been observed.
proudfootz 2 years ago
This is why you failed to post even one single shred, of this proof of evolution...
lmao!!! You have to be such a an enormous baffoon to think that you can sit there and scream "its been proven" "its been proven"
yeah bozo, i just caught big foot and i have him locked up in my desk drawer!!
lmao (he must be the missing link)
karamarouge 2 years ago
kara -
I'm not the one who's screaming.
It seems your hostility to science has unhinged your mind.
proudfootz 2 years ago
prove it.
CiphersSon 2 years ago
LOL! Just because I agree with the scientific fact of evolution creatinist kooks like karamarouge claim I 'can't think for myself'.
Kara has not read it as she doesn't know it is a book I am recommending and not an 'article'.
Creationist fails. Again!
proudfootz 3 years ago
Principles like fossil record, genetics, homology etc are combined to come up with the myth of evolution.
Any one postng facts that disprove any of the principles of the theory is infact posting evidence against
"THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION"
Goes to show the level of education of the morons defending this nonsense.
karamarouge 3 years ago
kara -
The articles you posted support theory of evolution and show creationism is all washed up.
Thanks for making it clear that evolution is a fact which is constantly being proved by scientists in all disciplines.
proudfootz 3 years ago
The man has totally lost his marbles now.
Articles that clearly question the validity of evolution are now apparently confirming it..
We serious titles like "Is it time to uproot the tree of life" as in darwins tree of life,
yet this exposed liar would like people to believe that his is an affirmation of the theory of evolution..
Keep on taking your meds bobo... May be if you lie some more people just might believe you.
karamarouge 3 years ago
None of the articles karamarouge has cited 'disprove' evolution - in fact they all support it.
proudfootz 3 years ago
karamarouge -- you don't seem to understand the slightest thing about this subject beyond its strawman caricature as portrayed in creationist cartoon books.
One of the differences between science and religion is that disagreement over the details is allowed in science. To this you seem quite clueless.
Take some courses at your local community college, or elect to take them in your junior year -- whichever may be the case.
Until then, thanks for playing.
CurbYrDogma 3 years ago
Looks I understand the disagreements in science better than you do.
Thats why you made the bone head mistake of assuming that i was making up arguments of my own instead of using arguments that have been advanced by some of the most hardcore Evolutionists out there.
I am not suprised that would would attempt to take this tangent in your argument. You are not the first ignorant darwinist i have debated..
You all always resort to the same bogus tactics you see you cant fudge the FACTS.
karamarouge 3 years ago
Seriously, you are obtuse enough to think that, that half assed answe you gave would wash?
It has failed you morons for the last 80 plus years why the hell did you think today would be the day you would sell it?
Yes science can be a tough task master and we shall not let you darwinist mullahs corrupt in a bid to sell your unproven unscientific bullshit that seeks to discard evidence as long as it contradicts your religion.
karamarouge 3 years ago
Every time the creationists have tried to sell their anti-science agenda they have been sent home with their tails between their legs.
Now creationism is so well refuted they have to disguise it as 'intelligent design' or 'irreducible complexity' - but it all comes down to the same thing: magic.
The time to use 'magic' to explain things is over - better grow up and face life head on.
proudfootz 3 years ago
karamarouge keeps trying to pretend scientists deny the fact of evolution, but has not been able to cite any - instead keeps citing articles that support evolution.
The tactic is usually known as 'quote mining' - often used by ignorant creationists because they haven't any credible authorities to dispute science.
proudfootz 3 years ago
Curbyr -
Kara seems to think that the titles of articles and papers are enough to falsify literally tons of evidence for evolution.
That just shows the idiocy of getting one's education about science from street-corner preachers instead of scientists.
proudfootz 3 years ago
Evolutionists are very good at claiming tons of evidence, the problem of course is,
YOU HAVE FAILED TO USE THESE TONS OF EVIDENCE TO ANSWER EVEN ONE OF MY QUESTIONS!!
NOT A SINGLE TIME!
So the question has to be asked are you too stupid to choose from this plethora of evidence of shut my arguments down?
What evidence have you come up with to explain this bothersome cambrian era?
NOne? I wonder why?
karamarouge 3 years ago
There's nothing bothersome about the Cambrian. Life millions of years ago was different than today's life.
Evolution explains that fact. Creationism is destroyed by that fact.
Get over it and get on with your life.
proudfootz 3 years ago
5 March 1999 (Science page 1435) Can Mitochondrial Clocks Keep Time?.
6 March 1999 (Science News page 159) Turtles and Crocs: Strange Relations.
21 May 1999 (Science page 1305) Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?--
All these articles chronicle the fact that DNA is proving more problematic than anything in recent history against the myth of evolution!
Those articles alone prove your horrendous lies about DNA evidence for evolution!
YOU ARE A LIAR! THERE IS THE PROOF!
karamarouge 3 years ago
None of these articles disputes the fact of evolution.
Again you have accused me of lying without proof.
proudfootz 3 years ago
7 August 1998 (Science page 774) New Views of the Origins of Mammals
27 November 1998 (Science page 1653) The Abominable Mystery
5 December 1998 (Science News page 358) Turtle Genes Upset Reptilian Family Tree.
6 February 1999 (Science News page 88) DNAs Evolutionary Dilemma-
26 February 1999 (Science page 1310) Evolutionary and Preservational Constraints on Origins of Biologic Groups
karamarouge 3 years ago
Not one of these articles disputes fact of evolution.
proudfootz 3 years ago
MORE PROOF?
Paleontologists will find other aspects of the genetic results perhaps even more disturbing than the news regarding turtles. Hedges and Poling provide some of the first DNA analysis of tuataras, a group of four-legged reptiles that look superficially like lizards and are regarded as their closest living relatives.
karamarouge 3 years ago
The analysis by Hedges and Poling, however, places tuataras nearer to crocodiles than to lizards. From a paleontological point of view, I cannot even begin to imagine how a tuatara could not be [closely] related to lizards and snakes, says Rieppel. 5
Science News, 6 March 1999, Turtles and Crocs: Strange Relations p. 159 (Ev)
karamarouge 3 years ago
like i said, i have tons and tons of articles proving your silly ignorant lies about DNA proving evolution!
Since you are making such claims without a any evidence, proof, link, sources or whatever, its time to step up to the plate!
EITHER POST PROOF, OR ADMIT THAT YOU ARE A LIAR WITH NO CLUE AS TO WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT!
karamarouge 3 years ago