Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

LOL. Okay dumbfuck. That's just one of the many we have. I thought it was the most interesting, since if I recall correctly that's one of the first ones that went on land. Since I posted one, that must be the only one I have right?

Wikipedia has a list. You could find more I'm sure at your local library if you bothered to pick up a science book that didn't have the Bible labeled on the front.

By the way, no response to the rest of my post? What a surprise, you don't understand the thing you're criticizing. Move along please, people who actually understand science are talking.

It went on land? And you know this to be fact how? From everything I've read the fins could not have supported it's weight on land not being connected to the main skeleton.

I could be wrong, but it remains an example of a transitional fossil. Which was the original point of that example.

Seriously your list of alleged transitional fossils prove nothing.

Except entirely disprove your claim that we have in fact found transitional fossils.

Continue to deny reality all you want, it won't go away no matter how much you close your eyes and wish it too.

The rest of you post needed no response. I have heard i tbefore and I still think it's a load of BS.

Face it, you are going to believe whatever scientist tells you.

To that I say read Psalms 118:8 for my response.

So you don't have actually a rebuttal when faced with someone who actually is scientifically literate with the thing you're talking about. What a surprise. I suggest again you go to your local library and pick up a book on biology. I think everyone already knows you failed high school biology.

Just because you and a few scientist claim it's a transitional fossil does not make it so. I have shown scientist that denied it being a transitional fossil. Therefore no positive conclusion can be drawn. Furthermore pictures and claims made in wikipedia are as credible as anything Obama says.

Objective paleontologists concede that one’s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one’s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]


Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):


“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460.

If that weren’t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:


“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:


"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:


“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:


“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]

Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:


“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
 
LOL. Okay dumbfuck. That's just one of the many we have. I thought it was the most interesting, since if I recall correctly that's one of the first ones that went on land. Since I posted one, that must be the only one I have right?

Wikipedia has a list. You could find more I'm sure at your local library if you bothered to pick up a science book that didn't have the Bible labeled on the front.

By the way, no response to the rest of my post? What a surprise, you don't understand the thing you're criticizing. Move along please, people who actually understand science are talking.

It went on land? And you know this to be fact how? From everything I've read the fins could not have supported it's weight on land not being connected to the main skeleton.

I could be wrong, but it remains an example of a transitional fossil. Which was the original point of that example.

Seriously your list of alleged transitional fossils prove nothing.

Except entirely disprove your claim that we have in fact found transitional fossils.

Continue to deny reality all you want, it won't go away no matter how much you close your eyes and wish it too.

The rest of you post needed no response. I have heard i tbefore and I still think it's a load of BS.

Face it, you are going to believe whatever scientist tells you.

To that I say read Psalms 118:8 for my response.

So you don't have actually a rebuttal when faced with someone who actually is scientifically literate with the thing you're talking about. What a surprise. I suggest again you go to your local library and pick up a book on biology. I think everyone already knows you failed high school biology.

How do you know these so called transitional fossils was not just another group of organisms that went extinct ? or they were simply deformed ?
 
Given the number of people on this thread who don't understand science, I'm amazed the United States of America became the first culture to put a man on the Moon......but it does explain why we haven't been back since 1972.

Apollo-11-moon-landing-3.jpg
 
For those who claim evolution is a myth. Please tell us how animals appeared on this planet. One day they weren't here and then God waved his wand and the next day they are running around. Is that it?

Pretty much.

:lol:

How you have "Logic" in your screen name and then have the balls to admit that this is what you believe. Really? In all your "logic" this is what you think?
 
Given the number of people on this thread who don't understand science, I'm amazed the United States of America became the first culture to put a man on the Moon......but it does explain why we haven't been back since 1972.

Apollo-11-moon-landing-3.jpg

Perhaps the reason we haven't been back is because there is nothing there.
 
For those who claim evolution is a myth. Please tell us how animals appeared on this planet. One day they weren't here and then God waved his wand and the next day they are running around. Is that it?

Pretty much.

:lol:

How you have "Logic" in your screen name and then have the balls to admit that this is what you believe. Really? In all your "logic" this is what you think?

It's not much different than believing the nonsense you believe.

Tell me, when did humans stop evolving and why? Why aren't there living transitional species that can be observed?
 
I was disheartened to hear Dr. Paul say he doesn't "believe" in the scientific fact of evolution, but I must admit the biggest issues for me are budgets/economy/taxes/foreign policy and I have total faith in his knowledge in those areas.

So he can still suck at Biology 101 and be a good prez, so I can't criticize others for voting for science deniers.
 
people who try to debunk evolution on the internets make me :lmao:

look, macro=evolution has never been observed and or documented there is nothing to debunk but vivid imaginations so that can be bebunked on the internet.

If it didn't occur, how did species appear millions of years apart? Gradualism is obviously not the way things work, hence "punctuated equilibrium" was postulated as the mechanism. The assumption is that numbers were initially very small making fossils hard to find, until such time as the changes created an advantage over the old form or allowed them to enter a new environmental niche with a consequent explosion in numbers. It can take many, many generations before a mutation in a single individual spreads around the population enough to see the differences in the fossil record.
 
Pretty much.

:lol:

How you have "Logic" in your screen name and then have the balls to admit that this is what you believe. Really? In all your "logic" this is what you think?

It's not much different than believing the nonsense you believe.

Tell me, when did humans stop evolving and why? Why aren't there living transitional species that can be observed?

No one said that humans have stopped evolving. As for observation, that would be impossible on a human timescale. We don't live long enough to see the changes. As a matter of fact, the time involved is so long that, we couldn't see the changes even if one had lived for the entire length of human history.
 
I was disheartened to hear Dr. Paul say he doesn't "believe" in the scientific fact of evolution, but I must admit the biggest issues for me are budgets/economy/taxes/foreign policy and I have total faith in his knowledge in those areas.

I think his comment says more about him being a politician than a lack of scientific knowledge.

His knowledge and proposals on foreign policy, our military and the global economy are flawed and will only result in war over the long term with many good Americans being killed or harmed in the process.
 
Given the number of people on this thread who don't understand science, I'm amazed the United States of America became the first culture to put a man on the Moon......but it does explain why we haven't been back since 1972.

Apollo-11-moon-landing-3.jpg

Perhaps the reason we haven't been back is because there is nothing there.

What a coincidence! Many Europeans in the Flat Earth Society said the same thing about the New World in the 1500s.
 
I was disheartened to hear Dr. Paul say he doesn't "believe" in the scientific fact of evolution, but I must admit the biggest issues for me are budgets/economy/taxes/foreign policy and I have total faith in his knowledge in those areas.

I think his comment says more about him being a politician than a lack of scientific knowledge.

His knowledge and proposals on foreign policy, our military and the global economy are flawed and will only result in war over the long term with many good Americans being killed or harmed in the process.

Will result in war over the long term with many good americans being harmed or killed?

What the hell do you think is going on right now? We're in the middle of a decade long war with no end in sight and tons of americans have been killed/harmed. The exact thing you fear is happening now, I think his policy would result in the opposite.
 
Given the number of people on this thread who don't understand science, I'm amazed the United States of America became the first culture to put a man on the Moon......but it does explain why we haven't been back since 1972.

Apollo-11-moon-landing-3.jpg

The ol bate and switch. Let's take an absurd theory and compare it to one of our many accomplishments. Let's not confuse real scientists with ones that give in to fantasy.
 
For those who claim evolution is a myth. Please tell us how animals appeared on this planet. One day they weren't here and then God waved his wand and the next day they are running around. Is that it?

Pretty much.

:lol:

How you have "Logic" in your screen name and then have the balls to admit that this is what you believe. Really? In all your "logic" this is what you think?

So how did life begin on this planet ?
 
:lol:

How you have "Logic" in your screen name and then have the balls to admit that this is what you believe. Really? In all your "logic" this is what you think?

It's not much different than believing the nonsense you believe.

Tell me, when did humans stop evolving and why? Why aren't there living transitional species that can be observed?

No one said that humans have stopped evolving. As for observation, that would be impossible on a human timescale. We don't live long enough to see the changes. As a matter of fact, the time involved is so long that, we couldn't see the changes even if one had lived for the entire length of human history.

Typical answer.

In other words evolution is still occurring yet there's no physical evidence of it. So we just have to take you at your word.

As I've pointed out, objective evolutionist, paleontologist etc....have admitted that there are no transitional fossils that supports evolution.

The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 1966

John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.

It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.

Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.

"Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards?" — Jonathan Wells (Recipient of two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. Has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. Has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.)
 
I was disheartened to hear Dr. Paul say he doesn't "believe" in the scientific fact of evolution, but I must admit the biggest issues for me are budgets/economy/taxes/foreign policy and I have total faith in his knowledge in those areas.

I think his comment says more about him being a politician than a lack of scientific knowledge.

His knowledge and proposals on foreign policy, our military and the global economy are flawed and will only result in war over the long term with many good Americans being killed or harmed in the process.

Will result in war over the long term with many good americans being harmed or killed?

What the hell do you think is going on right now? We're in the middle of a decade long war with no end in sight and tons of americans have been killed/harmed. The exact thing you fear is happening now, I think his policy would result in the opposite.

Isolationist policies prevented us from entering both WWI and WWII sooner. If we'd been involved in WWI sooner, then perhaps we would have had a greater influence on the Treaty of Versailles thereby preventing WWII. If we'd been involved in WWII from the get-go, then perhaps we could have nipped most of the fighting in the bud before becoming involved in a war which cost the United States over 400,000 dead heroes.

Isolationism is an ignorant way to handle foreign policy. President Bush was right on that score, "Better to fight them over there than fight them over here".
 

Forum List

Back
Top