|
Posted on 08/02/2004 3:58:04 PM PDT by Renfield
For Creationists? A pegasus or griffin.
>>I, and thousands of others, cite Archaeopteryx as an example of a transitional fossil; it has a mix of reptilian and avian features. Explain to me why I'm wrong.<<
Well, this is an interesting starting point:
http://www.rae.org/flight.html
I, and thousands of others, cite Archaeopteryx as an example of a transitional fossil; it has a mix of reptilian and avian features. Explain to me why I'm wrong.
I, and thousands of others, cite Archaeopteryx as an example of a transitional fossil; it has a mix of reptilian and avian features. Explain to me why I'm wrong.
Although I believe it is possible that you, yourself, do not believe this is a transitional form and are merely testing him. 8^>
Sorry, It looks like I have "cut and paste" issues today.
This from the article: Creationists have rightly responded by pointing out that Archaeopteryx is a mosaic of fully-formed reptilian features and fully-formed avian features, not a half- reptile/half-bird. Whether such odd mosaics are genuine transitional forms is doubtful (Gould and Eldredge 1977; see note after citation).
BTW, have I mentioned that I love Google...
That's certainly the opinion of Christians. The majority of the people on the planet would disagree. What makes you so sure you're right?
To my knowledge, the Koran has no prophecy in it - much less any that's been fulfilled
So?
The Hindu religions are pantheon - like the old Roman religions - gods for this and that. There isn't much going for their stuff either.
Again, what makes you so sure your religion got it right? Are all 800,000,0000 Hindus dumber than you, then?
Biblical Scripture is the word of God. Everyone elses pretty much makes a pretense but is otherwise left wanting.
Again, this is nothing more than the view of one of several major religions on this planet. It would seem that, if scripture were so great, it would be more appealing to the billions of people on this planet who are not Christians.
>>Archaeopteryx is a tranjsitonal form. There are scores of others known. Deal with it, and reserve the chanting for whatever superstition you adhere to.<<
Oops, I guess I was wrong about your motives. Carry on... 8^|
Really from what to what? Its a guess and you know it. Just because someone says that its a transitional form or they "believe" it is a transitional form does not make it so. Real evidence is in order evidence that can be subject to the scientific method. Otherwise anything said is just an educated guess.
Science once said that the dinosaurs were reptiles and ridiculed those who said otherwise, but look out !!! now science teaches that they are really birds. People who actually buy into evolution and ridicule those who don't accept, can't even and will never fess up to their own intellectual dishonesty.
Admit it, if evolution does not occur there is only one other option, you have to believe in special creation.
Evolution has persisted so that those who choose not to seek after God can be intellectually fullfilled.
Evolution gets its strength and power from it's broad and powerful foundation. This foundation has a name and it is chiseled deep into all sides so all who approach may see.
It's name: ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
Explain to me why you are right. All you've done is beg reason. You haven't presented a factual transition from one state to another. You have not presented a lizard changing to a bird. It's a bird. Whatever odd characteristics it might seem to have, it is a bird. I'm sorry, but that is not a transition. You point to it hoping people will buy it as a transition; but, then what do you do with the platypus? Right. It defies categorization because you categorized by what seamed reasonable to you. When you find something that defies your categorization, is it your method, or the thing your method is applied to that is at fault.
You can't explain how entire complex systems just appear out of nowhere. Lungs require integration into the nervous system and the circulatory system and must be integrated to fit in a cavity that makes room for it, must also have support mechanisms (new musculature) to provide for their function (ie the diaphram), must have a similar coding in the brain that regulates the function, etc. This is a massive leap which you can't show happening. Even one part of the mix, and I've been general in my listing, even one part would take a miracle, but the whole ball of wax happening would be so far beyond miraculous as the odds stack up that probability must fall to arguments of likelihood. Occam.. remember. And a transition in this point that failed to incorporate even one of the required changes isn't a partially working organism - it's dead.
Anything short of a 100% functional change that incorporates everything needed to make the thing functional results in death - either due to the obvious in this case - the animal dies because it can't breath - or do to selection - the animal can't survive it's environs and is actually picked out of the pack and becomes a pariah because it's different.
Transitional fossils should show us a critter with different stages of a developing wing - which again, cuts across multiple biological systems and functions. 1/5 of a wing don't make a bird. But you have nothing showing wings developing on mice to make a bat, or the like. This is nothing you guys aren't aware of. But you have to down play what's missing and play slight of hand otherwise.
Your problem. Not mine.
Try not to speak about things you have no experience in. The evidence on transitionals on this thread would qualify as evidence in a court of law. You, however, still haven't come up with any counter-argument other than "Does not!"
Present viable evidence that supports your claim or sit down and rest your case.
He has. And you have not supplied any rebuttals.
For what it's worth, bats aren't rodents nor did they descend from rodents.
What is your take on the leg remnants that appear on Boa Contrictors?
>>Try not to speak about things you have no experience in.<<
Have you ever read the interesting story about Lorenzo's Oil? It is truly fascinating.
|
Well, if you insist: Galileo's FINAL opinion, uttered on his deathbed, was: "and yet it moves," a repudiation of his earlier Recantation that the Earth was the center of the solar system. I'm confident that someone here can provide you with a citation if you need one.
Because we all know that persecution never ever forces a person to confess to something he doesn't actually believe.
The kinda off the point, considering that no one was "persecuting" Popper. Popper relates that his earlier erroneous opinion regarding natural selection being a tautology was based upon what others had told him, whereas his final opinion was based on his own personal reassessment of the matter. That's why his final opinion is the one that matters; it was the only one based on his own thinking, and not that of others.
>>What is your take on the leg remnants that appear on Boa Contrictors?<<
Genesis 3:14
So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
You asked. 8^>
A-G's been pinged but I can't type one without the other :-)
So, God cursed the serpent by making snakes incredibly efficient for their ecological niche?
Anyway, why keep the vestigial bones? Seems kind of like an inefficient approach to cursing.
Along a similar line, explain why whales are occasionally born with vestigial legs?
| >>What is your take on the leg remnants that appear on Boa Contrictors?<< Genesis 3:14
|
So, G-d performed an incomplete curse? Left visible remnants on some, and not others?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
