By the way: Archaeopteryx was fully avian. But it was still a transitional fossil. Anyone who uses the quote "Archaeopteryx was, in the modern sense a bird.." to mean the opposite is deliberately dishonest.
There are a multitude of transitional fossils. H neanderthalensis, H ergaster, H. habilis, H erectus are just a few human transitional forms. Archeopteryx is renowned for being the "first bird," but still closely related to theropod dinosaurs. Pre-cambrian life is abundant, but most of the fossils are so small they can barely be seen by the human eye.
But I'm curious now. What is your explanation for the fact that fossils are found increasingly unlike modern animals the further down into strata one digs, and that the fossils of modern animals are not found among them? Furthermore, why are those ancient animals not found today?
By the way, Piltdown Man did NOT "reign supreme". It was largely championed by British chauvinists who, not surprisingly, wanted to claim Britain as the homeland of the human species, but was immediately challenged by French and American scientists. It was withdrawn from public display; it was contraindicated by subsequent finds, and was revealed, by SCIENCE ITSELF, to have been a hoax once the techniques for doing so were established. It was the triumph of the scientific method, not a failure.
This is essentially the same thing as me putting up a video where I paste up quotes insisting that we've never found any references to this "Jesus Christ" fellow in the Bible. If you're simply going to insist the evidence that's plain doesn't exist simply because you can point to quotes where someone's said as much, all you're doing is engaging in wishful thinking by importing wholesale someone else's inability to understand something. Can I sell you this bridge I have in Brooklyn...?
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!!!!
Get this through your thick creationist head: there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". There are, however, those who blindly reject the evidence and those who think.
lol, forget transitional fossils, look at the walking catfish. it's a living example of a transitional living animal. evolution is so blatantly obvious.
Gotta love how every time you fill a gap in the fossil record the creationist claims now there are 2 gaps where there was 1 before, and thanks you.
When you actually think about it tho, lacking a transitional fossil here or there actually poses a bigger problem for the creationist who claims all kinds were made AT THE SAME TIME, than the evolutionist who can simply tell you that fossilization is a rare event, so we are bound to be missing a few here or there.
A quote from 1959. Wow! I guess scientists haven't made any progress in finding fossil evidence or genetic evidence for evolution since then because some guy before the start of the Vietnam War was poorly quoted ... Well, guys, I guess we should just go ahead and give up on this whole "science" thing. By the way, I had the strangest dream last summer that I took a bio-anthro course and held all of these hominid skulls in my hands. That was some dream!
The reason there is no such thing as a transitional fossil is that EVERY fossil is transitional. In fact YOU are transitional. It would be like saying "breathable oxygen" or "wet water".
1st quote, talking about life before bones 2nd, outdated, and works only if your idea of special creation means humans still have a common ancestor with fish 3rd, geologist 4th, apparently ignores dinosaurs (which aren't reptiles) 5th, quote mining 6th, quote mining 7th, only if you ignore all of its dinosaur parts 8th, agreed 9th, not an argument against evolution 10th, details 11th, journalist 12th, opinion And then you go all nonsense on us. Looking at errors that scientists never believed.
The fossils are layered like this, In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils, above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils and dinosaur fossils SEE a Pattern? There are no human fossils found in any of these layers. No dating methods used No gaps
By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic
The fossils are layered like this, In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils, above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils and dinosaur fossils SEE a Pattern? There are no human fossils found in any of these layers. No dating methods used No gaps
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.… Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.
@gregrutz ambulocetus and dalanistes seems to be varieties of the created kind. From what I am looking at the pictures. But from dalanistes to rodhocetus there should be an intermediate. where is it? Now, rodhocetus, takracetus, gaviocetus, probably Dorudon and Basilosaurus are varieties of them too
@HEC01 I show you two intermediate fossils and you want to see the intermediate fossil between them. If I show you one will you ''beleive'' in evolution.
The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.... Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment
@gregrutz and that is where evolution fails to do. There are people that still have adherence to the gradualistic part that Darwin postulated in the first place.
@gregrutz and that is where evolution fails to do. There are people that still have adherence to the gradualistic part that Darwin postulated in the first place.
In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers.
Quote mining is not proof! Feduccia may have noted the archeopteryx more like a bird but he doesn't say god made it fully formed. He believes it to have evolved from an archosaur rather than a therapod as many others think! Get a proper argument.
Isn't it interesting how people can still say "Oh, yes there are transitional fossils b/c...blah blah blah."
.... if this is true then why are scientist who are evolutionist and those who specialize in paleontology saying that there aren't any transitional fossils??
Everything is a transitional specimen. Are you identical to your mother? Is your daughter identical to you? No. Every generation sees minute changes that either spread or declines, every generation is transitional to the next.
If you were to go back a thousand generations can you honestly say that the people you descended from would be recognizable to you?
@norsef Saying that "everything is a transitional specimen" doesnt always apply that way that you said. a couple of those transitional fossils might also be varietys of a species. What you guys need to show is that the animals that lived in the past have any connection of those today.
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.
We have thousands of prehistoric species still alive today that never evolved in our oceans. Inconvenient evidence I suppose.
When an organism produces a mutant it's nearly impossible for the mutant organism to reproduce, and even harder for it to survive. How then did billions of these transitions happen going against natural selection?
Darwinism has lead to over a billion deaths in the name of ethnic cleansing and nobody cares. People with morals like myself are attached for having faith.
First, I read your other comments you have been spamming for the last 40 mins or so, mostly ranting the common misconception about the fossil record. We are lucky to have any fossils at all, the fact that there may be gaps does no undermine the validity of evolution in the slightest. Fossils have not be necessary to support evolution for over 100 years, with the discovery of the genes and the advances in molecular and microbiology we can prove evolution without the use of a single fossil
Second, I would not the word of a 'scientist' who denies evolution very seriously. Most likely these people are either Kent Hovind or just creationists wearing a lab coat. It doesn't matter if you could get Einstein to admit evolution is wrong, that doesn't change the fact it exists. Things that exists and things that do not are not distinguished by which person 'believes' them.
@superwowie111 Evolutionist apologist are confused fake myth of dino bird that is still placed in text books as fact. Could have Evolved from tree down. This new insight not only proves how fraudgulant the theory was and is. It crucifies reptile to bird. its birds to reptile lol hahahah wake up man this is not science this is imaginary wishfull thinking.
@superwowie111 Just look at the those that invested in the ideas. They were all trying to justify murdering indigenous people and saw them as half ape half man.
Materialism is the blood money that backs this theory.
Silly argumentation, quotations out of context or without explaining the whole scenario. For example, Alan Feduccia does not deny evolution. He denies birds from coming from theropods, which is different. He thinks birds came from archosaurs (and is almost alone defending this idea).
@nfrick1 And isn't it wonderful that the scientific method is deliberately constructed so that frauds are eventually found out, old/out-dated ideas are replaced with ones based on the current collective of evidence, and different disciplines, while only having part of the answer, can appeal to one another for added insight and much-needed supplemental data?
In part, this video unwittingly shows that the science communtiy works.
where did this term "evolutionists" spring up from?? ..why dont people say "Gravitationists" , . the only people who generally use the word "evolutionists" ..are Creationists.
They want to place people who believe in evolution into a group. It's easier to fight the "enemy" when you have them clearly defined and in a group. In the right wing mind, they already use the "evolutionist" label in the negative. I've witnessed and been branded as one myself. Personally, Im fine with it, even though like you said, a title isn't needed. But I admit I love to see the Right wingers use "Evillutionist", that way we can find out their agenda without them speaking another word.
Cherry picked quotes only? Where is the evidence? Why no mention of the morphological similarities between Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs?
Since when was 'The Houston Chronicle' a scientific journal?
Barbara Stahl was arguing against direct ancestry. That is, Archaeocetes were a branch that never evolved to whales, not that whale evolution never happened.
Piltdown man was revealed as a forgery by PALEONTOLOGISTS. The same goes for Archaeoraptor. Why would scientists reveal their own hoax?????
Archeoraptor turns out to be hoaxed from the fossils of a bird and another feathered bird-like dinosaur. Hoax or not you still end up with a bird-like dinosaur.
Just for reference, while Piltdown man was a hoax there are literally hundreds of fossils from over fifteen species of hominids that are not.
I know. I read about them because intelligent design people kept throwing the names out during debates. Apparently the Piltdown hoax is enough to convince them that all fossils are fakes. The media can't even get the Ardi story right. In one of the videos they described Ardi as 'surprisingly un-apelike'. ????? She IS an ape. WTF???? You would think the news, at least, would get the terms straight.
Well most of the ID people I've heard of don't through out transitional fossils like Creationists do. They do believe evolution happened just like the science shows, they just also think it was guided. ID is really just theistic evolution.
That's a much more reasonable position. I have heard a lot of William Lane Craig's debates, and I wish more Christians would listen to him. Trying to discredit physical evidence creates unwarranted mistrust in the scientific community.
BTW while that "Piltdown bird" Archeoraptor was a hoax it was the compilation of two fossils -a bird and another feathered dinosaur names Microraptor. So this doesn't prove anything. One bird dinosaur is debunked only by being replaced with another.
Yup. What I thought was funny though was that Archeoraptor even though it was a hoax turned out to be partially constructed from the fossil of another feathered dinosaur -Microraptor.
So this crying hoax doesn't help the creationists one bit! LOL Either way you get a feathered dinosaur!
Notices how they are saying feathered "dinosaur". They are still dinosaurs and not half chicken half alligator. A dog can have fur and a cat can have fur. They are different species, and does not make water tight evidence of evolution.
"Notices how they are saying feathered "dinosaur"."
Of course, because the only creatures with feathers are birds and some dinosaurs. Thus if it is not a feathered bird it must be a feathered dinosaur. So why would they say anything other than feathered bird or feathered dinosaur? None of this has anything to do with the phylogeny of birds though.
"They are still dinosaurs and not half chicken half alligator."
Ever heard of a velociraptor? Just because it has to be either a bird or a dinosaur doesn't mean that a dinosaur can't be part bird. It just isn't more than 50% bird yet.
Yes, and all the links we have in all of the evolutionary trees can just coincide to appear like they are related like that. But that is a very contrived looking and ad hoc explanation. It doesn't explain much either, like for example why chickens have the atavistic coding for velociraptor snouts hidden in their DNA.
Studying evolution is like studying forensics. Yes, we can't "know" in a direct sense, but we can piece together the evidence and get a pretty good picture.
It's not a matter of wanting to believe it. That's just where the evidence and the logic lead. To be honest as a kid I started out as a Young Earth Creationist. It's just that it doesn't fit the facts.
One little thing though. As it turns out the evolutionary timeline may be compatible with Genesis after all. A guy named Gerald Schroeder found out that if you take time dilation (time warpage) from the Big Bang into effect, 14 billion years can equal 6 days. Seriously, I'm not making this up!
It is a matter of belief, because i don't believe it. It makes more sense to me that we were created so if you want to believe your a monkey then go ahead.
"It is a matter of belief, because i don't believe it. "
Not everything is a matter of belief. We believe in basic assumptions and gather concrete evidence which are not open for dispute via belief. Now the assumptions are taken on faith, but we can use Ockham's razor to cut down the number of assumptions and find the more likely answer. The model which explains the most with the least is likely true, and there are a lot of things evolution can readily explain that creationism takes as ad hoc.
Evolution is something that takes many generations. By definition you can only live in one generation so of course you couldn't see it.
Why is this ridiculous? It doesn't just explain how the wide variety of animals came to be it also explains a great deal more about their genetics, their distribution around the planet, and their distribution in geological strata. It explains quite a bit. For example all T. Rex fossils have been found exclusively in late cretaceous strata. Why is that?
Well no but you can provide a very strong case for it from the equivalent of forensic evidence.
It isn't true that they haven't found a great many transitional fossils. One thing I noticed about creationism when I was a creationist is that they would say this, but then if you look it up they find many such fossils.
A really interesting one you might want to look at is Tiktaalik. What's interesting here is that they predicted something like it would exist using evolution before they found it.
Except i cannot verify any of the supposed fossils. And all of the evidence is only showing a supposed common ancestor, not the action of evolution.
My main point though is that i don't have to believe in evolution because is has no significance to me. Creationism fits my life, and i'm happy with it.
Very well, that is a good point. Knowledge about evolution is only needed in the areas of the sciences anyway. It's technical knowledge for a specific set of disciplines so to speak. If that makes you happy I won't fuss about it like some.
Why not have your cake and eat it too? Afterall you didn't specify the MEANS of creation. Perhaps it involves upgrading a Dryopithecus. Now it has been noted by scientists that evolution especially in the human case occurred oddly fast. In the human case very fast. Also the "platonizing" gene that made us fully human in the cognitive sense appeared 6k years ago. It seems to me that evolution was "helped" along so to speak.
Look up a guy named Gerald Schroeder. He has an interesting model which makes the days in Genesis compatible with 14+ billion year old universe -literally.
Apparently if you take time dilation into account 14 billion years in one reference frame equal six days in another. Just multiply six days by the big bang expansion factor and you get the evolutionary age of the universe because of time warpage.
The one thing I always wonder when creationists are trotting this stuff out... look, this dinosaur CAN'T be related to that one because its thumbs are different! or, look, this flying reptile COULDN'T be related to birds because it has teeth!... is: what, exactly, do they think these vast classes of extinct animals ARE? What, funny-looking polar bears? Varieties of unicorns who didn't board the ark? Escaped devils, fallen angels... what ARE they? They ignore the FOREST to argue about trees!
This vid is so poor it makes me sorry for the chump who posted it. A ragbag of elderly misrepresented quotes does not constitute any sort of argument. Desperate stuff.
actually, there for once isn't any out of context quote mining. how ever most of this garbage has been corrected and is like 20years out of date LMAO nice try you creationist goon but there is no retreat from something you never feared in the first place
Why do evolutionists so often resort to name calling? That's not exactly a dignified and scientific way to have a discussion and find truth. Yes, the quotes are older - but the fossil types are virtually unchanged since then. Yes, as Dr. Berlinski notes in his Youtube vids, 2 decades ago there was more open mindedness and willingness to question evoution; but then evolutionists saw the creationists coming & enforced "politial correctness." As Expelled shows, dissent can lead to firing now.
show me one thing that approve evolution. why it does not happen nowadays, I have never seen any transitional creature. Do not show me extinct animals fossils and claim that this is transitional creatures.
You are a transitional creature, every living thing is. You dont have to accept evolution, but learn about it if you are going to speak against it. Seals could even be a transition between a land animal and a sea animal. They have all the bone structures of land mammals, yet they are better at swimming than walking. Someday seals may live only in water like whales do now. Whales once lived on land as well.
YOU are a transitional animal -- at least potentially, if you have kids, and they have kids, etc.
"show me one thing that approve evolution. why it does not happen nowadays"
It does happen these days. Speciation HAS be observed and peer reviewed. But let me ask YOU: why don't we see CREATION going on nowadays? What about just plain miracles? Why did God part the Red Sea for Moses, but not the English Channel for the Allies?
Be content that I'm only being fair using "May have been, might be, it appears that, could be, assumed to have been, probably, seems to have occured, most likely". The vid didn't show the exact depth where the fossils disappear so I can't prove it properly. If I'm right they just took advantage of the planet's layers.
Geniusidiot - You are following the path of evolutionary thinking very well, I'm sorry to say. Their literature is replete with these kinds of statements: May have been, could possible be due to, many scientists feel that, might have been the result of... Check it out. That is what you will see over and over in evolutionary literature. That is not science. Science requires ev--i-dence, not armchair theorizing. There are billions and billions of fossils out there, friend!
It didn't even say completely void of fossils. Those few lifeforms "could have" evolved into a much larger variety of lifeforms which scientists call the cambrian explosion. BTW there is no such thing as non-transitional fossils. All fossils are transitional. Even we are transitional. The only reason why you thing there are no transitional fossils is because you cling to the fossils that scientists have already named and classified for you. It's a mis-understanding.
Geniusidiot - My friend the Cambrian explosion is so named because it reprsents every major phylum, yet nothing showis how it evolved. Theories (excuses) don't cut it. Where is the fossil ev-I-dence? Where is the proof, the evidence, that all is transitional fossils? They say "This fossil is simpler but like that fossil, so it is its ancestor." Yet where is the EVIDENCE the simpler fossil reproduced anything at all different from itself?? EVIDENCE is needed for SCIENCE! Think ev-i-dence.
So your asking for evidence of the genetic mutations? I'll message you that. Do you really think they claim that a "simpler" fossil is the ancestor of a "more advanced" fossil? Scientists very carefully examine the traits of the plant/animal before suggesting it's the ancestor of another plant/animal. Think on the procedure. Also, religion is not handicapped. They require extroardinary evidence for what they suggest. Whatever a book says can't be real just because it says so.
Effect of evolutionary teaching on the brain: Many evolutionists admit: There are no transitional fossils, the ev-i-dence is NOT there. Loyal fan responds: "What? What are they saying? I don't get it. Musta been said out of context. Trust those scientists in white coats. Have faith in them my brothers and sisters! Ignore discrepancies or flat out quotes that tell you something different from what you havve been taught! Have faith withOUT fossils! They just...uh, aren't found yet?.". Siigh.
Please name the "evolutionists". You are too literal. All fossils are indeed transitional. It's the human brain that wants to classify and segregate everything which causes you to think all fossils that have a name are not transitional. Since you're so picky I'll message you transitional fossils that will seem more obvious to you.
Sorry that I can't listen to the music that long. that's why you're here. This is actually about the first time I didn't go through a whole controversial vid.
So you say. So you have been taught to believe. Unfortunately all those world reknowned evolutilonists in this video (before the creationists started publishing their comments and it became highly politically incorrect & professionally dangerous to speak out publicly against evolution) don't happen to think you are correct! Should I go with your opinion or theirs? Hmmm...
In every one of those fields there are people speaking out against the politcally correct, outdated, orthodoxy of evolution.
You do not determine truth by popular vote, especially when academia squashes dissent. You do not determine truth by logical fallacies like appeal to authority.
You check out both sides and carefully examine the evidence. It takes time for we have not been trained to think for ourselves and to analyze and debunk bogus arguments that sound good but don't hold up.
Siiigh. YES DEAR, THERE ARE DISSENTING SCIENTISTS IN EVERY FIELD. How come you don't know that?
YES, TRUTH COMES FROM SCIENTIFIC STUDY, but evolution is based on unproven assumptions and armchair theorizing. DID I MENTION SCRIPTURES? I do believe they are the word of YHWH, but one doesn't need them to disprove evolution. YOU ARE BEING SHOWN THE OTHER SIDE IN THIS VID and all over the net. But you can't see it, not yet anyway. The SCIENTISTS in this vide are talking to you. Liiiiiisten!
My friend, this is one of the many statements you have made that make it clear you are not really searching out the facts, only giving your guesses or quoting others who are mistaken or lying. You need to really, honestly research both sides. Look again at this vid. Turn off the music and see what you are being told.
The bad news is evolution is not true. The wonderful news is evolution is not true. I cannot do your research for you.
I will leave you to do it for yourself. Don't be lazy.
I researched both side, but one side only has one outdated book written 2000 years ago. It is mostly about religion and offers no proof for it's statments.
What about the kangaroo, koala, dingo, tassie devil and all of Australia's other animals that raise their young on milk? They regulate their own body heat and feeds their young on milk. They are mammals.
Although I think religion is for the most a basket of lies and stories, please research before you post something like that.
any vertebrate of the class Mammalia, having the body more or less covered with hair, nourishing the young with milk from the mammary glands, and, with the exception of the egg-laying monotremes, giving birth to live young.
OK, then why do we only find animals with pouches in Australia. How did they get from the Ark in Turkey to an Island but other mammals without pouches did not?
you are working off the basis that continental drift has never occured, which in fact it is, and nearly always has been. plus what is the dingo? it is a placental mammal, two kinds of mammals are recognised, marsupials, and placentals. marsupials also once existed on Antarctica and south america.
The Dingo is a domestic dog which has reverted to a wild state for thousands of years.
Archeological data indicates an arrival between 3,500 to a maximum of 12,000 years ago. To reach Australia from Asia, there would have been at least 50 km of open sea to be crossed, even at the lowest sea level. Since there is no known case of a big land animal who made such a journey by itself, it is most likely that the ancestors of modern dingoes were brought to Australia on boats by Asian seafarers.
Read your above comments I'll put it below for you too.
"#
gregrutz
11 months ago
No they are not mammals, they are marsupials. There are no mammals in Australia. Why? "
Ever heard of continental drift? Super continents splitting? Their are answers for all of your questions. Seek and you shall find. Google is your friend, USE IT.
"Debating Creationists on the topic of Evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
"Out of context" along with "quote mining" are the protests evoluitonist defenders often use. However, if one looks at these quotes they cannot be interpreted any other way, and as many have discovered, when one looks at the quotes in their full context, they are even more damming to the theory of evolution. For just one example, what part of the S. Gould quote at 2:02 can you show is out of context or in anyway not totally clear?? Please illucidate on that particular quote.
Tommy - No creationists I've ever seen denies that Gould believed in evolution. Thousands of fossils? That's not what Gould said. That's noit what these world reknown evolutionists in the vid say, now is it? They are saying there are none! People don't always get "pissed off" at others because they are dishonest, dear. Often it is because they don't like the truth that others are revealing about their double think and unscientific reasoning! You are being shown truth in this vid. Listen.
Creationism is laughable. Read any scientific magazine, journal, paper etc and you will hear of new transitional fossils found weekly. These transitions are predicted by the theory too, showing how reliable and testable the theory is.
Go to a museum and you can see the transitions too. Who do you really think is the truthful one here. Be honest now
Look-at-the-quotes. What...are...they saying....? Who is speaking? Evolutionists.! What are they saying? They are saying there are nooooo transitional forms! Listen carefully now....No-transitional-forms. Whose quotes are these? Creationists or evolutionists?
Don't believe everything you hear and read, even if it is coming from the "experts" and museums.. Two contradictory beliefs cannot both be true - 1st law of logic. Our school systems are teaching kids to let others think for them!
Back in tenth grade, when we were learning how to construct a proper argumentative, taking quotes out of context was something we were instructed not to do.
By the way: Archaeopteryx was fully avian. But it was still a transitional fossil. Anyone who uses the quote "Archaeopteryx was, in the modern sense a bird.." to mean the opposite is deliberately dishonest.
TaslemGuy 6 months ago
There are a multitude of transitional fossils. H neanderthalensis, H ergaster, H. habilis, H erectus are just a few human transitional forms. Archeopteryx is renowned for being the "first bird," but still closely related to theropod dinosaurs. Pre-cambrian life is abundant, but most of the fossils are so small they can barely be seen by the human eye.
TaslemGuy 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But I'm curious now. What is your explanation for the fact that fossils are found increasingly unlike modern animals the further down into strata one digs, and that the fossils of modern animals are not found among them? Furthermore, why are those ancient animals not found today?
PatchesRips 6 months ago
By the way, Piltdown Man did NOT "reign supreme". It was largely championed by British chauvinists who, not surprisingly, wanted to claim Britain as the homeland of the human species, but was immediately challenged by French and American scientists. It was withdrawn from public display; it was contraindicated by subsequent finds, and was revealed, by SCIENCE ITSELF, to have been a hoax once the techniques for doing so were established. It was the triumph of the scientific method, not a failure.
PatchesRips 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is essentially the same thing as me putting up a video where I paste up quotes insisting that we've never found any references to this "Jesus Christ" fellow in the Bible. If you're simply going to insist the evidence that's plain doesn't exist simply because you can point to quotes where someone's said as much, all you're doing is engaging in wishful thinking by importing wholesale someone else's inability to understand something. Can I sell you this bridge I have in Brooklyn...?
PatchesRips 6 months ago
I'm 13, you should know this too.
SuperJasontheman 6 months ago
@SuperJasontheman So Called "Neanderthals" Confuse Evolutionists
h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=LLhgeNh9eRY
Evolving View of Neanderthal Doesn't Help Evolution
h t t p://wwwDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=uBp1ExNc3X0
Neanderthals: Caveman or Human?
h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=dpIHOlu9JGQ
BereanBeacon1 6 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 '''Neanderthals: Caveman or Human?''' LOL funny. They were Both.
1. They lived in caves many thousands of years ago, so they were 'cave men''
2. They were not hono sapians but were still a Kind of Human, their DNA shows that.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@SuperJasontheman The Puzzle of Ancient Man
h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=2ON13a5OwD8
Neanderthals - Smarter Than We Thought
h t t p://w w w DOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=xxL636n3w2o
Fossil Men
h t t p://w w w DOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=NEw8fk6NvbI
BereanBeacon1 6 months ago
Homo erectus
SuperJasontheman 6 months ago
Examples of human transitional fossils from the top of my head: astrolopithecus afarensis, a. Africanus, a. Rudolfensis, h
SuperJasontheman 6 months ago
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 well,The creationists said it.Proven.But you know something else will come about.
urbman29 6 months ago
Get this through your thick creationist head: there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". There are, however, those who blindly reject the evidence and those who think.
Blarghonius 7 months ago
lol, forget transitional fossils, look at the walking catfish. it's a living example of a transitional living animal. evolution is so blatantly obvious.
itzahazylife 9 months ago
FUCKHEAD
rankrodney 11 months ago
20 year old quotes!!!
Jaymaul009 1 year ago
Gotta love how every time you fill a gap in the fossil record the creationist claims now there are 2 gaps where there was 1 before, and thanks you.
When you actually think about it tho, lacking a transitional fossil here or there actually poses a bigger problem for the creationist who claims all kinds were made AT THE SAME TIME, than the evolutionist who can simply tell you that fossilization is a rare event, so we are bound to be missing a few here or there.
AnonConda 1 year ago
A quote from 1959. Wow! I guess scientists haven't made any progress in finding fossil evidence or genetic evidence for evolution since then because some guy before the start of the Vietnam War was poorly quoted ... Well, guys, I guess we should just go ahead and give up on this whole "science" thing. By the way, I had the strangest dream last summer that I took a bio-anthro course and held all of these hominid skulls in my hands. That was some dream!
markviman 1 year ago
The reason there is no such thing as a transitional fossil is that EVERY fossil is transitional. In fact YOU are transitional. It would be like saying "breathable oxygen" or "wet water".
megamarsvin 1 year ago 2
Let's just start right off with a mine quote ! And some more!
Let's go back 150 years to mine quote !
gregrutz 1 year ago
Keeban3 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
There have been evolutionary scientists that have said that the fossils doesnt seem to be supporting evolution
HEC01 1 year ago
How can quoting an evolutiontist prove creationism?!?
gregrutz 1 year ago
By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic
HEC01 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz proof of this. I treat this with great scepticism.
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01 Of course you don't look at the fossils, they blow you out of the water.
gregrutz 1 year ago
David Raup acknowledged:
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.… Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01 How many transitional fossils do you need to prove evolution?
99% of all species that every lived on the earth are extinct, do they count?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz there SHOULD be almost extensive that a species have a direct ancestor and a direct descendant of other.
HEC01 1 year ago
no. find fossil that have a direct ancestor of one and a direct descendant of the other
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01 direct ancestors>>>>
-Ambulocetus
-Dalanistes
-Rodhocetus
-Takracetus
-Gaviocetus
-Dorudon
-Basilosaurus
-Modern whale
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz ambulocetus and dalanistes seems to be varieties of the created kind. From what I am looking at the pictures. But from dalanistes to rodhocetus there should be an intermediate. where is it? Now, rodhocetus, takracetus, gaviocetus, probably Dorudon and Basilosaurus are varieties of them too
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01 I show you two intermediate fossils and you want to see the intermediate fossil between them. If I show you one will you ''beleive'' in evolution.
Or just want to see more.
gregrutz 1 year ago
The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.... Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01 Darwin was wrong about the 'gradual' part, he is 150 years out of date.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz and that is where evolution fails to do. There are people that still have adherence to the gradualistic part that Darwin postulated in the first place.
HEC01 1 year ago
@gregrutz and that is where evolution fails to do. There are people that still have adherence to the gradualistic part that Darwin postulated in the first place.
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01 Evolution was gradual, it is sometimes not. But it did happen, right!
gregrutz 1 year ago
In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers.
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01 How do you know, have you studied the fossil record?
I didn't think so.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Have YOURSELF studied the fossil record?
HEC01 1 year ago
Quote mining is not proof! Feduccia may have noted the archeopteryx more like a bird but he doesn't say god made it fully formed. He believes it to have evolved from an archosaur rather than a therapod as many others think! Get a proper argument.
daltriani 1 year ago
Platypus!!!!!! half bird! (duck-billed - egg-laying ) half reptile! (venomous - gait) half mamal! (fur - mammary glands)
lebb640 2 years ago
= 1 and a half........
HoldingMyLastRook 2 years ago
Super Playpus! :)
lebb640 2 years ago
@lebb640 no its between a reptile and mammal but is considered a mammal
patrickledford420 2 years ago
Blame education, religion and the misery of the world for people believeing in the evolution
HEC01 2 years ago
@HEC01
You are right about the blame religion part for people that don't believe in evolution.
superwowie111 1 year ago
Isn't it interesting how people can still say "Oh, yes there are transitional fossils b/c...blah blah blah."
.... if this is true then why are scientist who are evolutionist and those who specialize in paleontology saying that there aren't any transitional fossils??
Ah hahaha....wow. SHAM(e)wow!
ladyEulaelie 2 years ago
@ladyEulaelie they arnt these r fake frauds ask any real pleontologist
patrickledford420 2 years ago
@ladyEulaelie
Everything is a transitional specimen. Are you identical to your mother? Is your daughter identical to you? No. Every generation sees minute changes that either spread or declines, every generation is transitional to the next.
If you were to go back a thousand generations can you honestly say that the people you descended from would be recognizable to you?
norsef 2 years ago
@norsef Saying that "everything is a transitional specimen" doesnt always apply that way that you said. a couple of those transitional fossils might also be varietys of a species. What you guys need to show is that the animals that lived in the past have any connection of those today.
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01 Look at the fossil record, DNA, anything you like, just LOOK.
gregrutz 1 year ago
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
We have thousands of prehistoric species still alive today that never evolved in our oceans. Inconvenient evidence I suppose.
When an organism produces a mutant it's nearly impossible for the mutant organism to reproduce, and even harder for it to survive. How then did billions of these transitions happen going against natural selection?
Darwinism has lead to over a billion deaths in the name of ethnic cleansing and nobody cares. People with morals like myself are attached for having faith.
brown55061 2 years ago
ignorant creationists
superwowie111 2 years ago
@superwowie111 yeah, creationists are always ignorant(sarcasm), evolutionists know everything
HEC01 2 years ago
evolutionists no, but scientists certainly know more than any creationist
superwowie111 2 years ago 9
@superwowie111 ur right look at these quotes
shinesthrudarain 2 years ago
@superwowie111 that may not be the case. This is an appeal to popularity and ridicule. There are scientists that doesnt accept the evolutionary ideas
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01
First, I read your other comments you have been spamming for the last 40 mins or so, mostly ranting the common misconception about the fossil record. We are lucky to have any fossils at all, the fact that there may be gaps does no undermine the validity of evolution in the slightest. Fossils have not be necessary to support evolution for over 100 years, with the discovery of the genes and the advances in molecular and microbiology we can prove evolution without the use of a single fossil
superwowie111 1 year ago
@superwowie111 Based on what?
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01
Wtf?
superwowie111 1 year ago
@HEC01
Second, I would not the word of a 'scientist' who denies evolution very seriously. Most likely these people are either Kent Hovind or just creationists wearing a lab coat. It doesn't matter if you could get Einstein to admit evolution is wrong, that doesn't change the fact it exists. Things that exists and things that do not are not distinguished by which person 'believes' them.
superwowie111 1 year ago
@superwowie111 No. I'm not talking about kent hovind. Hell, I dont even care for him.
S.William Pelletier,
Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry, U. of
Georgia
Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München
Just to mention two
HEC01 1 year ago
@superwowie111 Evolutionist apologist are confused fake myth of dino bird that is still placed in text books as fact. Could have Evolved from tree down. This new insight not only proves how fraudgulant the theory was and is. It crucifies reptile to bird. its birds to reptile lol hahahah wake up man this is not science this is imaginary wishfull thinking.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@superwowie111 Just look at the those that invested in the ideas. They were all trying to justify murdering indigenous people and saw them as half ape half man.
Materialism is the blood money that backs this theory.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
Silly argumentation, quotations out of context or without explaining the whole scenario. For example, Alan Feduccia does not deny evolution. He denies birds from coming from theropods, which is different. He thinks birds came from archosaurs (and is almost alone defending this idea).
Oh, and terrible musical taste too!
nfrick1 2 years ago 13
@nfrick1 I never saw somebody take something out of context. Can you prove that?
HEC01 1 year ago
@nfrick1 whether allan feducia denies evolution or not is not the concern
HEC01 1 year ago
@nfrick1 and your argument doesnt make much sense either. Because they personally accept evolution is misquoting??????
HEC01 1 year ago
@nfrick1 And isn't it wonderful that the scientific method is deliberately constructed so that frauds are eventually found out, old/out-dated ideas are replaced with ones based on the current collective of evidence, and different disciplines, while only having part of the answer, can appeal to one another for added insight and much-needed supplemental data?
In part, this video unwittingly shows that the science communtiy works.
Ematched 1 year ago
where did this term "evolutionists" spring up from?? ..why dont people say "Gravitationists" , . the only people who generally use the word "evolutionists" ..are Creationists.
bonnie43uk 2 years ago
They want to place people who believe in evolution into a group. It's easier to fight the "enemy" when you have them clearly defined and in a group. In the right wing mind, they already use the "evolutionist" label in the negative. I've witnessed and been branded as one myself. Personally, Im fine with it, even though like you said, a title isn't needed. But I admit I love to see the Right wingers use "Evillutionist", that way we can find out their agenda without them speaking another word.
ewoowoo 2 years ago
Cherry picked quotes only? Where is the evidence? Why no mention of the morphological similarities between Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs?
Since when was 'The Houston Chronicle' a scientific journal?
Barbara Stahl was arguing against direct ancestry. That is, Archaeocetes were a branch that never evolved to whales, not that whale evolution never happened.
Piltdown man was revealed as a forgery by PALEONTOLOGISTS. The same goes for Archaeoraptor. Why would scientists reveal their own hoax?????
grits011 2 years ago 2
Archeoraptor turns out to be hoaxed from the fossils of a bird and another feathered bird-like dinosaur. Hoax or not you still end up with a bird-like dinosaur.
Just for reference, while Piltdown man was a hoax there are literally hundreds of fossils from over fifteen species of hominids that are not.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
I know. I read about them because intelligent design people kept throwing the names out during debates. Apparently the Piltdown hoax is enough to convince them that all fossils are fakes. The media can't even get the Ardi story right. In one of the videos they described Ardi as 'surprisingly un-apelike'. ????? She IS an ape. WTF???? You would think the news, at least, would get the terms straight.
grits011 2 years ago
Well most of the ID people I've heard of don't through out transitional fossils like Creationists do. They do believe evolution happened just like the science shows, they just also think it was guided. ID is really just theistic evolution.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
That's a much more reasonable position. I have heard a lot of William Lane Craig's debates, and I wish more Christians would listen to him. Trying to discredit physical evidence creates unwarranted mistrust in the scientific community.
grits011 2 years ago
Yes.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
BTW while that "Piltdown bird" Archeoraptor was a hoax it was the compilation of two fossils -a bird and another feathered dinosaur names Microraptor. So this doesn't prove anything. One bird dinosaur is debunked only by being replaced with another.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
They are finding more feathered dinosaurs in China.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Yup. What I thought was funny though was that Archeoraptor even though it was a hoax turned out to be partially constructed from the fossil of another feathered dinosaur -Microraptor.
So this crying hoax doesn't help the creationists one bit! LOL Either way you get a feathered dinosaur!
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Notices how they are saying feathered "dinosaur". They are still dinosaurs and not half chicken half alligator. A dog can have fur and a cat can have fur. They are different species, and does not make water tight evidence of evolution.
retsnom92 2 years ago
"Notices how they are saying feathered "dinosaur"."
Of course, because the only creatures with feathers are birds and some dinosaurs. Thus if it is not a feathered bird it must be a feathered dinosaur. So why would they say anything other than feathered bird or feathered dinosaur? None of this has anything to do with the phylogeny of birds though.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
"They are still dinosaurs and not half chicken half alligator."
Ever heard of a velociraptor? Just because it has to be either a bird or a dinosaur doesn't mean that a dinosaur can't be part bird. It just isn't more than 50% bird yet.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Yes, and all the links we have in all of the evolutionary trees can just coincide to appear like they are related like that. But that is a very contrived looking and ad hoc explanation. It doesn't explain much either, like for example why chickens have the atavistic coding for velociraptor snouts hidden in their DNA.
Studying evolution is like studying forensics. Yes, we can't "know" in a direct sense, but we can piece together the evidence and get a pretty good picture.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
At this point i don't care anymore. If you want to believe you came from monkeys then go ahead, why don't you go marry one.
retsnom92 2 years ago
It's not a matter of wanting to believe it. That's just where the evidence and the logic lead. To be honest as a kid I started out as a Young Earth Creationist. It's just that it doesn't fit the facts.
One little thing though. As it turns out the evolutionary timeline may be compatible with Genesis after all. A guy named Gerald Schroeder found out that if you take time dilation (time warpage) from the Big Bang into effect, 14 billion years can equal 6 days. Seriously, I'm not making this up!
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
It is a matter of belief, because i don't believe it. It makes more sense to me that we were created so if you want to believe your a monkey then go ahead.
retsnom92 2 years ago
"It is a matter of belief, because i don't believe it. "
Not everything is a matter of belief. We believe in basic assumptions and gather concrete evidence which are not open for dispute via belief. Now the assumptions are taken on faith, but we can use Ockham's razor to cut down the number of assumptions and find the more likely answer. The model which explains the most with the least is likely true, and there are a lot of things evolution can readily explain that creationism takes as ad hoc.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
I have never seen any animal or plant evolve into a higher species. Therefore i choose not to believe in something that ridiculous.
retsnom92 2 years ago
Evolution is something that takes many generations. By definition you can only live in one generation so of course you couldn't see it.
Why is this ridiculous? It doesn't just explain how the wide variety of animals came to be it also explains a great deal more about their genetics, their distribution around the planet, and their distribution in geological strata. It explains quite a bit. For example all T. Rex fossils have been found exclusively in late cretaceous strata. Why is that?
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
My point is that you cannot recreate evolution in the lab, or find the supposed millions of transitional fossils.
retsnom92 2 years ago
Well no but you can provide a very strong case for it from the equivalent of forensic evidence.
It isn't true that they haven't found a great many transitional fossils. One thing I noticed about creationism when I was a creationist is that they would say this, but then if you look it up they find many such fossils.
A really interesting one you might want to look at is Tiktaalik. What's interesting here is that they predicted something like it would exist using evolution before they found it.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Except i cannot verify any of the supposed fossils. And all of the evidence is only showing a supposed common ancestor, not the action of evolution.
My main point though is that i don't have to believe in evolution because is has no significance to me. Creationism fits my life, and i'm happy with it.
retsnom92 2 years ago
Very well, that is a good point. Knowledge about evolution is only needed in the areas of the sciences anyway. It's technical knowledge for a specific set of disciplines so to speak. If that makes you happy I won't fuss about it like some.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Why not have your cake and eat it too? Afterall you didn't specify the MEANS of creation. Perhaps it involves upgrading a Dryopithecus. Now it has been noted by scientists that evolution especially in the human case occurred oddly fast. In the human case very fast. Also the "platonizing" gene that made us fully human in the cognitive sense appeared 6k years ago. It seems to me that evolution was "helped" along so to speak.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Look up a guy named Gerald Schroeder. He has an interesting model which makes the days in Genesis compatible with 14+ billion year old universe -literally.
Apparently if you take time dilation into account 14 billion years in one reference frame equal six days in another. Just multiply six days by the big bang expansion factor and you get the evolutionary age of the universe because of time warpage.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
What about Tiktaalik?
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Archaeopterys was a bird..........
Yes it was, it had a boney tail and teeth, like a dinosaur. A transitional fossil ? Yes
gregrutz 2 years ago
The one thing I always wonder when creationists are trotting this stuff out... look, this dinosaur CAN'T be related to that one because its thumbs are different! or, look, this flying reptile COULDN'T be related to birds because it has teeth!... is: what, exactly, do they think these vast classes of extinct animals ARE? What, funny-looking polar bears? Varieties of unicorns who didn't board the ark? Escaped devils, fallen angels... what ARE they? They ignore the FOREST to argue about trees!
PatchesRips 2 years ago
Your quote mining and ignorance of transitional fossils is not proof of no transitional fossils.
Watch a video by DonExodus2 called Transitional Fossils II and see a list of a whole bunch of them for yourself.
hgryphon 2 years ago 2
Thank you BabyJesus for TRANSITIONAL SPECIES !!!
Creationists are looking dumber and dumber .
1947Chief 2 years ago
This vid is so poor it makes me sorry for the chump who posted it. A ragbag of elderly misrepresented quotes does not constitute any sort of argument. Desperate stuff.
ech1dna 2 years ago
Many evolutionists admit: There are no transitional fossils.
Sorry, they found them.
look to your right, watch
Evolution fish with fingers
gregrutz 2 years ago
Is it a feathered dinosaur OR
is it a bird without a breast bone.
Darn, must be another transitional fossil.
It's Origin of Species, not origin of feathers.
gregrutz 2 years ago
actually, there for once isn't any out of context quote mining. how ever most of this garbage has been corrected and is like 20years out of date LMAO nice try you creationist goon but there is no retreat from something you never feared in the first place
320iguy 2 years ago
Why do evolutionists so often resort to name calling? That's not exactly a dignified and scientific way to have a discussion and find truth. Yes, the quotes are older - but the fossil types are virtually unchanged since then. Yes, as Dr. Berlinski notes in his Youtube vids, 2 decades ago there was more open mindedness and willingness to question evoution; but then evolutionists saw the creationists coming & enforced "politial correctness." As Expelled shows, dissent can lead to firing now.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Why do evolutionists so often resort to name calling"
because it is frustrating talking to really stupid people who are blind of the facts.
Dr. Butinski is paid to make up shit.
Evolution has been accepted for 150 years.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Why do "evolutionists" resort to name calling? I've had typical swearing by theists a fair amount of times (unless you want to call them hypocrites).
GeniusIdiot 2 years ago
Why do evolutionists so often resort to name calling"
because it is frustrating talking to really stupid people who are blind of the facts.
Dr. Butinski is paid to make up shit.
Evolution has been accepted for 150 years
gregrutz 2 years ago
show me one thing that disproves evolution, just one.
gregrutz 2 years ago
show me one thing that approve evolution. why it does not happen nowadays, I have never seen any transitional creature. Do not show me extinct animals fossils and claim that this is transitional creatures.
zizo20002000 2 years ago
Watch, Why do people laugh at Crationist.
gregrutz 2 years ago
You are a transitional creature, every living thing is. You dont have to accept evolution, but learn about it if you are going to speak against it. Seals could even be a transition between a land animal and a sea animal. They have all the bone structures of land mammals, yet they are better at swimming than walking. Someday seals may live only in water like whales do now. Whales once lived on land as well.
Staunts 2 years ago
Open Google and type "observed instances of speciation" and you can read all about observed evolution.
hgryphon 2 years ago
"I have never seen any transitional creature"
YOU are a transitional animal -- at least potentially, if you have kids, and they have kids, etc.
"show me one thing that approve evolution. why it does not happen nowadays"
It does happen these days. Speciation HAS be observed and peer reviewed. But let me ask YOU: why don't we see CREATION going on nowadays? What about just plain miracles? Why did God part the Red Sea for Moses, but not the English Channel for the Allies?
PatchesRips 2 years ago
"No trace of ancestors". They may have been destroyed by geological processes beyond that point.
GeniusIdiot 2 years ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Be content that I'm only being fair using "May have been, might be, it appears that, could be, assumed to have been, probably, seems to have occured, most likely". The vid didn't show the exact depth where the fossils disappear so I can't prove it properly. If I'm right they just took advantage of the planet's layers.
GeniusIdiot 2 years ago
Geniusidiot - You are following the path of evolutionary thinking very well, I'm sorry to say. Their literature is replete with these kinds of statements: May have been, could possible be due to, many scientists feel that, might have been the result of... Check it out. That is what you will see over and over in evolutionary literature. That is not science. Science requires ev--i-dence, not armchair theorizing. There are billions and billions of fossils out there, friend!
LoricaLady 2 years ago
It didn't even say completely void of fossils. Those few lifeforms "could have" evolved into a much larger variety of lifeforms which scientists call the cambrian explosion. BTW there is no such thing as non-transitional fossils. All fossils are transitional. Even we are transitional. The only reason why you thing there are no transitional fossils is because you cling to the fossils that scientists have already named and classified for you. It's a mis-understanding.
GeniusIdiot 2 years ago 2
Geniusidiot - My friend the Cambrian explosion is so named because it reprsents every major phylum, yet nothing showis how it evolved. Theories (excuses) don't cut it. Where is the fossil ev-I-dence? Where is the proof, the evidence, that all is transitional fossils? They say "This fossil is simpler but like that fossil, so it is its ancestor." Yet where is the EVIDENCE the simpler fossil reproduced anything at all different from itself?? EVIDENCE is needed for SCIENCE! Think ev-i-dence.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
So your asking for evidence of the genetic mutations? I'll message you that. Do you really think they claim that a "simpler" fossil is the ancestor of a "more advanced" fossil? Scientists very carefully examine the traits of the plant/animal before suggesting it's the ancestor of another plant/animal. Think on the procedure. Also, religion is not handicapped. They require extroardinary evidence for what they suggest. Whatever a book says can't be real just because it says so.
GeniusIdiot 2 years ago
Effect of evolutionary teaching on the brain: Many evolutionists admit: There are no transitional fossils, the ev-i-dence is NOT there. Loyal fan responds: "What? What are they saying? I don't get it. Musta been said out of context. Trust those scientists in white coats. Have faith in them my brothers and sisters! Ignore discrepancies or flat out quotes that tell you something different from what you havve been taught! Have faith withOUT fossils! They just...uh, aren't found yet?.". Siigh.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Please name the "evolutionists". You are too literal. All fossils are indeed transitional. It's the human brain that wants to classify and segregate everything which causes you to think all fossils that have a name are not transitional. Since you're so picky I'll message you transitional fossils that will seem more obvious to you.
GeniusIdiot 2 years ago
Name the evolutionists? Did you watch the video, really, or not? Rhetorical Q. with rolling eyes. Siiiigh.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Comment removed
GeniusIdiot 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry that I can't listen to the music that long. that's why you're here. This is actually about the first time I didn't go through a whole controversial vid.
GeniusIdiot 2 years ago
They are all transitional fossils !
gregrutz 2 years ago
So you say. So you have been taught to believe. Unfortunately all those world reknowned evolutilonists in this video (before the creationists started publishing their comments and it became highly politically incorrect & professionally dangerous to speak out publicly against evolution) don't happen to think you are correct! Should I go with your opinion or theirs? Hmmm...
Bet you can guess dear one! :-D
LoricaLady 2 years ago
So you think geologist are all wrong
and biologist are wrong,
and paleotolighist are wrong
and DNA experts are wrong
But Dr. Butinski says, "I don't understand, I need to see 40,000 intermediate fossils.' and he is right.
gregrutz 2 years ago
In every one of those fields there are people speaking out against the politcally correct, outdated, orthodoxy of evolution.
You do not determine truth by popular vote, especially when academia squashes dissent. You do not determine truth by logical fallacies like appeal to authority.
You check out both sides and carefully examine the evidence. It takes time for we have not been trained to think for ourselves and to analyze and debunk bogus arguments that sound good but don't hold up.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
In every one of those fields there are people speaking out against the politcally correct, outdated, orthodoxy of evolution.
NO THERE IS NOT
You do not determine truth by logical fallacies like appeal to authority.
TRUTH COMES FROM SCIENTIFIC STUDY, IS THE BIBLE AUTHORITY?
check out both sides and examine the evidence.
SCIENCE IS ONE SIDE, THEY HAVE EVIDENCE. WHAT IS THE OTHER SIDE?
we have not been trained to think for ourselves
IF YOU WERE A SCIENTIST YOU WOULD BE TRAINED TO THINK.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Siiigh. YES DEAR, THERE ARE DISSENTING SCIENTISTS IN EVERY FIELD. How come you don't know that?
YES, TRUTH COMES FROM SCIENTIFIC STUDY, but evolution is based on unproven assumptions and armchair theorizing. DID I MENTION SCRIPTURES? I do believe they are the word of YHWH, but one doesn't need them to disprove evolution. YOU ARE BEING SHOWN THE OTHER SIDE IN THIS VID and all over the net. But you can't see it, not yet anyway. The SCIENTISTS in this vide are talking to you. Liiiiiisten!
LoricaLady 2 years ago
99.98% of scintist accept evolution, there is no other side. You have been watching too many ID videos.
It is like someone coming into the NASA orbital plotting room and saying, "You guys have it wrong, the earth is flat."
But since you havve no idea about science you don't even know how stupid you sound.
watch, why people laugh at creationist.
gregrutz 2 years ago
The scientist didn't get fired because he didn't believe in evolution,
He got fired because he said, "I have figured out the scientific problem I have been working on for the last six months,
God made it that way."
gregrutz 2 years ago
My friend, this is one of the many statements you have made that make it clear you are not really searching out the facts, only giving your guesses or quoting others who are mistaken or lying. You need to really, honestly research both sides. Look again at this vid. Turn off the music and see what you are being told.
The bad news is evolution is not true. The wonderful news is evolution is not true. I cannot do your research for you.
I will leave you to do it for yourself. Don't be lazy.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
the wonderful news is ID lost, evolution is taught in science class, not religion.
gregrutz 2 years ago
I researched both side, but one side only has one outdated book written 2000 years ago. It is mostly about religion and offers no proof for it's statments.
Why are there no mammals in Australia?
gregrutz 2 years ago
What about the kangaroo, koala, dingo, tassie devil and all of Australia's other animals that raise their young on milk? They regulate their own body heat and feeds their young on milk. They are mammals.
Although I think religion is for the most a basket of lies and stories, please research before you post something like that.
tambostorm 2 years ago
No they are not mammals, they are marsupials. There are no mammals in Australia. Why?
gregrutz 2 years ago
a marsupial IS a mammal:
noun
any vertebrate of the class Mammalia, having the body more or less covered with hair, nourishing the young with milk from the mammary glands, and, with the exception of the egg-laying monotremes, giving birth to live young.
wtfmovman 2 years ago
OK, then why do we only find animals with pouches in Australia. How did they get from the Ark in Turkey to an Island but other mammals without pouches did not?
gregrutz 2 years ago
you are working off the basis that continental drift has never occured, which in fact it is, and nearly always has been. plus what is the dingo? it is a placental mammal, two kinds of mammals are recognised, marsupials, and placentals. marsupials also once existed on Antarctica and south america.
wtfmovman 2 years ago
The Dingo is a domestic dog which has reverted to a wild state for thousands of years.
Archeological data indicates an arrival between 3,500 to a maximum of 12,000 years ago. To reach Australia from Asia, there would have been at least 50 km of open sea to be crossed, even at the lowest sea level. Since there is no known case of a big land animal who made such a journey by itself, it is most likely that the ancestors of modern dingoes were brought to Australia on boats by Asian seafarers.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz
Marsupials are mammals. All marsupials are mammals, but not all mammals are marsupials. God-damn, did you not go to school?
tambostorm 1 year ago
@tambostorm Where did I say anything about marsupials?
How did they get from Turkey to Australia? And no other mammals did?
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz
Read your above comments I'll put it below for you too.
"#
gregrutz
11 months ago
No they are not mammals, they are marsupials. There are no mammals in Australia. Why? "
Ever heard of continental drift? Super continents splitting? Their are answers for all of your questions. Seek and you shall find. Google is your friend, USE IT.
tambostorm 1 year ago
P.S. In my heart I feel I have to leave you this one final note: YHWH loves you Greg.
(And you, too, Geniusidiot and others.) Primal pond goo is not your creator. YHWH is your Creator and your true Father. Praying for you all. Bye! :-)
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Praying for you
Why? I haven't broken an commandments.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Ooh, what a doozy for Thunderfoot to dissect and destroy.
DoggySpew 2 years ago
"Debating Creationists on the topic of Evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
gorgeoustxwoman 2 years ago 2
"Out of context" along with "quote mining" are the protests evoluitonist defenders often use. However, if one looks at these quotes they cannot be interpreted any other way, and as many have discovered, when one looks at the quotes in their full context, they are even more damming to the theory of evolution. For just one example, what part of the S. Gould quote at 2:02 can you show is out of context or in anyway not totally clear?? Please illucidate on that particular quote.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
The very fact that Gould became really pissed off at creationists misrepresenting his position shows the dishonesty at work.
SJ Gould DID believe in evolution, but suggested that changes were not so gradual, and operated in leaps and bounds.
The fossil record has gaps, big whoop. It would be odd if it didn't. But transitions? We have thousands.
Better luck next time (again) for the creationists
tommyk77 2 years ago
Tommy - No creationists I've ever seen denies that Gould believed in evolution. Thousands of fossils? That's not what Gould said. That's noit what these world reknown evolutionists in the vid say, now is it? They are saying there are none! People don't always get "pissed off" at others because they are dishonest, dear. Often it is because they don't like the truth that others are revealing about their double think and unscientific reasoning! You are being shown truth in this vid. Listen.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Creationism is laughable. Read any scientific magazine, journal, paper etc and you will hear of new transitional fossils found weekly. These transitions are predicted by the theory too, showing how reliable and testable the theory is.
Go to a museum and you can see the transitions too. Who do you really think is the truthful one here. Be honest now
tommyk77 2 years ago 2
Look-at-the-quotes. What...are...they saying....? Who is speaking? Evolutionists.! What are they saying? They are saying there are nooooo transitional forms! Listen carefully now....No-transitional-forms. Whose quotes are these? Creationists or evolutionists?
Don't believe everything you hear and read, even if it is coming from the "experts" and museums.. Two contradictory beliefs cannot both be true - 1st law of logic. Our school systems are teaching kids to let others think for them!
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Gould is famous because he wrote explaining Why we don't find "transitional" fossils.
Creationist always try to turn it around, see the Other side.
gregrutz 2 years ago
"forbidden"
it's not forbidden. it's just not science.
abyssquick 2 years ago 2
Back in tenth grade, when we were learning how to construct a proper argumentative, taking quotes out of context was something we were instructed not to do.
CurbYrDogma 3 years ago
sigh, im aggitated at how I just
wasted my time on this nonesense.
I would rate this garbage 1 star
emancoy 3 years ago